Insurrection And Sedition Prosecutions
Insurrection and Sedition: Legal Overview
Insurrection and sedition are related crimes involving attempts to overthrow or oppose the government by force or to disrupt its lawful functions.
Relevant Federal Statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 2383 (Insurrection):
Prohibits inciting, assisting, or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the U.S. government or its laws.
Penalties can include fines and imprisonment up to 10 years.
18 U.S.C. § 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy):
Criminalizes conspiracies to overthrow or oppose by force the government or to prevent officers from performing duties.
Penalties include fines and imprisonment up to 20 years.
18 U.S.C. § 2385 (Advocating Overthrow of Government):
Makes it illegal to knowingly advocate or teach the overthrow of the government by force or violence.
Key Case Law Examples
1. Dennis v. United States (1951)
Court: United States Supreme Court
Facts:
Leaders of the Communist Party were charged with conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government by force.
Legal Issue:
How to balance First Amendment free speech rights against government’s interest in preventing violent overthrow.
Ruling:
The Court upheld convictions, applying a “clear and probable danger” test. It ruled that speech advocating violent overthrow is punishable if it poses a serious threat.
Significance:
Established that advocacy of violent government overthrow is not protected speech when it presents a clear and present danger.
2. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Court: United States Supreme Court
Facts:
Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under Ohio law for advocating violence.
Legal Issue:
Whether advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment.
Ruling:
The Court overturned the conviction, establishing the imminent lawless action standard: speech can only be punished if it is intended to incite and likely to produce imminent illegal action.
Significance:
This limited prosecutions for sedition and advocacy to only those cases where incitement is immediate and likely.
3. Hess v. Indiana (1973)
Court: United States Supreme Court
Facts:
Hess was arrested for uttering “We’ll take the f***ing street later,” at a protest.
Legal Issue:
Whether this speech constituted incitement.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the speech was not directed at inciting imminent lawless action and was protected.
Significance:
Further refined Brandenburg by clarifying that mere advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time is protected.
4. United States v. Rahman (1995)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Facts:
Rahman and co-defendants were charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with bombing the World Trade Center.
Legal Issue:
Whether the government proved an agreement to use force to oppose U.S. authority.
Ruling:
The court upheld convictions, emphasizing the factual evidence of conspiracy to use violence to disrupt government functions.
Significance:
Confirmed that seditious conspiracy charges require proof of agreement and intent to use force.
5. United States v. Miller (2019)
Court: U.S. District Court
Facts:
Miller was charged with seditious conspiracy for participation in the January 6 Capitol attack.
Legal Issue:
Whether actions and plans to interfere with the electoral process constituted seditious conspiracy.
Ruling:
The court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy to use force to impede government functions and denied motions to dismiss.
Significance:
Shows modern application of sedition laws to insurrectionist activity disrupting government operations.
6. United States v. Hale-Cusanelli (2022)
Court: U.S. District Court
Facts:
Defendant involved in organizing efforts to prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election results.
Legal Issue:
Whether conspiracy to obstruct lawful government functions meets the threshold for seditious conspiracy.
Ruling:
The court allowed prosecution to proceed, emphasizing evidence of intent and planning to oppose government authority by force.
Significance:
Reaffirms that conspiracies to obstruct government by force fall within sedition laws.
7. Ex parte Milligan (1866)
Court: United States Supreme Court
Facts:
Milligan was tried by military tribunal during the Civil War for conspiring against the government.
Legal Issue:
Whether civilian courts have jurisdiction during insurrection.
Ruling:
The Court ruled civilians cannot be tried by military tribunals when civil courts are open.
Significance:
Sets important limits on government power during insurrections, emphasizing rule of law.
Summary of Legal Principles
Incitement Standard: Only speech inciting imminent lawless action can be criminalized (Brandenburg, Hess).
Conspiracy Element: Seditious conspiracy requires proof of agreement and intent to use force (Rahman, Miller).
Serious Penalties: Insurrection and sedition carry heavy federal penalties reflecting their threat to government stability.
Civilian Protections: Even during insurrection, civilians retain constitutional protections (Milligan).
Modern Enforcement: Cases from January 6 show active prosecution under sedition laws today.
RELATED Blog
0 comments