Hubbry Logo
Seditious conspiracySeditious conspiracyMain
Open search
Seditious conspiracy
Community hub
Seditious conspiracy
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Seditious conspiracy
Seditious conspiracy
Seditious conspiracy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Seditious conspiracy is a crime in various jurisdictions of conspiring against the authority or legitimacy of the state. As a form of sedition, it has been described as a serious but lesser counterpart to treason, targeting activities that undermine the state without directly attacking it.[1]

Common law

[edit]
Main article: Sedition § History in common law jurisdictions

In common law jurisdictions, seditious conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to do any act with the intention to excite hatred or contempt against the persons or institutions of state, to excite the alteration by unlawful means of a state or church matter established by law, to raise discontent among the people, or to promote ill will and enmity between classes. Criticising a policy or state institution for the purpose of obtaining lawful reform is not seditious.[2] Seditious conspiracy, like other forms of sedition, developed during the late medieval period to apply to activities that threatened the social order but fell short of constructive treason. Enforcement of both types of offence under the Tudors and Stuarts grew increasingly harsh; courts judged the accused's intentions suspiciously, allowing juries to decide only whether the alleged events had occurred. A trend of jury nullifications in the 18th century ultimately limited the scope of seditious crimes.[3]

Charges of seditious conspiracy were notably brought in the United Kingdom against Irish radicals and Chartists in the 19th century[2][4] before being abolished in 2010.[5] The charge has been used against labour activists in both Canada and Australia, such as the leaders of the 1919 Winnipeg general strike and the Sydney Twelve. In British India, the charge was used to imprison independence activists, and the extension of their imprisonment by the 1919 Rowlatt Act led to Mahatma Gandhi's call for nonviolent resistance.

In Canada, the maximum sentence for seditious conspiracy is 14 years in jail.[6]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, seditious conspiracy is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2384:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

This law was enacted in 1861 after secessionists gained control of most slaveholding states as the Confederate States of America, although it was originally sought by Senator Stephen A. Douglas in response to John Brown's 1859 raid on a federal arsenal. A substantially similar offense appeared in the Sedition Act of 1798 signed by President John Adams to suppress the Democratic-Republican Party's criticisms of the Quasi-War.[7] However, the law was deeply unpopular and was allowed to expire after Thomas Jefferson defeated Adams in the 1800 presidential election. After Nat Turner's Rebellion, the Virginia General Assembly amended the state slave codes to enact charges similar to seditious conspiracy against slaves and free blacks who held unauthorized assemblies or led slave rebellions.[8][9]

Notable cases

[edit]

Puerto Rican nationalists

[edit]

Puerto Rican nationalists seeking the island's independence from the United States have been charged and convicted on multiple occasions. In 1936, Pedro Albizu Campos and other leaders of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party were prosecuted. Another seventeen members of the PRNP were charged after four of them carried out the 1954 Capitol shooting. In 1980, Puerto Rican Nationalist Carmen Valentín Pérez and nine others were charged, and were each given sentences of up to 90 years in prison.[10]

Far-right groups

[edit]

Seditious conspiracy charges have been brought several times against far-right groups. In 1940, the government arrested seventeen members of the Christian Front, followers of fascistic broadcaster Father Charles Coughlin. All of the charges ended in dismissal or acquittal.[11] Edwin Walker, a former Army Major General, was arrested for seditious conspiracy and insurrection in 1962 after he incited a segregationist riot to prevent the admission of black student James Meredith at the University of Mississippi; the charges were dismissed. In the 1987 Fort Smith sedition trial, Louis Beam and nine other white supremacists were indicted for the activities of The Order and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. All ten defendants and four other defendants indicted for different crimes were acquitted in April 1988 after a two-month trial.

In 2010 the United States Department of Justice attempted to prosecute the Christian nationalist Hutaree militia of Lenawee County, Michigan, for seditious conspiracy. Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ordered the seditious conspiracy charges to be dismissed under First Amendment grounds.[12][13]

January 6 attacks

[edit]

Several members of American far-right militias were charged with seditious conspiracy for their participation in the January 6 United States Capitol attack, in which a mob of the outgoing President Donald Trump's supporters attacked the United States Capitol in an attempt to prevent the 2021 United States Electoral College vote count formally certifying his successor Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 United States presidential election.

Nine Oath Keepers were found guilty of seditious conspiracy to stop the presidential transition of Joe Biden.[14][15][16]

Kelly Meggs
  • In May 2022, three Oath Keeper members — Joshua James, Brian Ulrich, and William Todd Wilson — pled guilty to this charge.[17]
  • In November 2022, leader Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs, a leader in Florida, were convicted of this charge.[18] Rhodes was later sentenced to 18 years and Meggs to 12 years.[19]
  • In January 2023, four more Oath Keepers — Roberto Minuta, Joseph Hackett, David Moerschel and Edward Vallejo — were convicted of this charge.[20] Minuta was later sentenced to 54 months, Hackett to 42 months, Moerschel to 36 months, and Vallejo to 36 months. All four were sentenced to an additional 36 months of supervised release.[21]

Three other Oath Keeper leaders were acquitted of the seditious conspiracy charge.[22]

In June 2022, five Proud Boys leaders, including their former chairman Enrique Tarrio, were similarly charged.[23] In October, a sixth Proud Boy leader pled guilty to seditious conspiracy, as well as a weapons charge, as part of a cooperation agreement.[24] On May 4, 2023, Tarrio and three of the other Proud Boys leaders — Ethan Nordean, Joe Biggs, and Zachary Rehl — were found guilty of seditious conspiracy. [25] On September 5, 2023, Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison. During sentencing, stating the reasoning behind the lengthy sentence, Judge Timothy J. Kelly quoted the seditious conspiracy statute, stating that Tarrio committed a “serious offense” and that he was the "ultimate leader of that conspiracy...motivated by revolutionary zeal.”[26]

U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors involved in the seditious conspiracy cases against the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers attempted to block the defendants from blaming Trump in their defenses on the basis that he had no political authority to order such a conspiracy.[27]

Upon Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, he commuted the sentences of six of the Oath Keepers (Rhodes, Meggs, Minuta, Vallejo, Moerschel, and Hackett) and three of the Proud Boys (Nordean, Biggs, Rehl) who had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. Three more Oath Keepers and two more Proud Boys who had been convicted of other charges also received commutations. Their sentences were commuted to "time served," allowing them to be released from prison immediately, but their convictions stood. Apart from these 14 commutations, everyone else convicted of offenses related to the Capitol attack, who by then numbered over a thousand, was granted "a full, complete and unconditional pardon".[28]

After the public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, some legal analysts and political commentators argued that enough evidence existed to indict Trump himself for seditious conspiracy either in connection with the attack or his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election in general.[29][30][31] President Biden and certain special interest groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers had already previously accused Trump of sedition for his speech at the rally before the attack.[8] Ultimately, however, while Trump was charged with four counts, seditious conspiracy was not among them.

Islamist terrorism

[edit]

In 1995 Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, a prominent Muslim cleric, and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning to bomb New York City landmarks after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.[32]

In 1996, after his Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places stating al-Qaeda's intention to carry out terrorist attacks on the United States, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin investigating Osama bin Laden under the charge of seditious conspiracy.[33]

Others

[edit]

The government charged three members of the Buffalo, New York-based El Ariete Society, a communist group, in 1920. The defendants were acquitted by a judge as the government failed to prove that the defendants had any connection with the seditious publications that were presented as evidence, or that any active conspiracy had existed.[34]

Three members of the United Freedom Front, a Marxist group, were convicted in 1989 for a series of attacks against corporate, government, and military targets.[35]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Seditious conspiracy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Seditious conspiracy is a offense under , codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2384, which criminalizes any agreement by two or more persons to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the , to levy war against it, to oppose by force the authority thereof in its territories, to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any , or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the contrary to its authority. Conviction under the statute is punishable by a fine, for not more than twenty years, or both. The crime requires proof of an unlawful agreement—distinct from mere advocacy or speech—coupled with specific intent to employ force against governmental functions or property, often necessitating evidence of overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Enacted as part of post-Civil War legislation in Chapter 115 of Title 18 addressing treason, sedition, and subversive activities, the offense has historically been invoked sparingly, reflecting judicial caution toward its potential to encroach on First Amendment protections absent clear forceful objectives. Notable prosecutions include convictions against Puerto Rican nationalists for a 1954 armed assault on the U.S. Capitol and, more recently, leaders of groups like the Oath Keepers for alleged plots tied to the January 6, 2021, events, marking a revival after decades of dormancy. These cases underscore ongoing debates over the statute's application, particularly in distinguishing conspiratorial force from protected political dissent, amid critiques of selective enforcement influenced by prevailing political climates.

Origins in Common Law

The offense of in English emerged as a designed to safeguard public tranquility by criminalizing to unlawful resistance against the sovereign's authority, distinct from high which demanded overt acts such as compassing the king's or levying war. Its doctrinal roots trace to the , particularly under , when Tudor courts, including the Court of , prosecuted spoken or written words tending to provoke discontent or tumult, as these were seen to causally erode governmental stability amid Reformation-era factionalism. Prosecutions required proof of to disturb the rather than mere criticism, with penalties including fines, , or ; truth offered no defense, underscoring the offense's preventive rationale over post-hoc justification. Seditious conspiracy arose from the fusion of this principle with conspiracy doctrines, which rendered agreements by two or more persons indictable if aimed at unlawful ends endangering the , even absent completed acts. Recognized by the late medieval period but applied to sedition in the —exemplified in cases like the post-Restoration suppressions of plotters against Charles II—such conspiracies targeted organized scheming to disseminate disaffection, assemble unlawfully, or oppose authority by force short of war, amplifying individual sedition's threat through coordination. Courts viewed these plots empirically as to broader disorder, punishing them to deter escalation; for instance, conspirators faced sanctions, often harsher than solitary sedition due to the inherent danger of multiplied actors. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of (1765–1769) systematized these principles, situating seditious words, libels, and attendant conspiracies within offenses against the public peace, where expressions calculated to "impute false news or scandalous matter" against the government risked inciting "illegal combinations" or riots. Blackstone emphasized post-publication punishment over but upheld liability for content foreseeably leading to unrest, reflecting common law's realist calculus that unchecked seditious plotting causally undermined sovereign legitimacy without necessitating violent outcomes. This framework, unencumbered by modern free speech absolutism, prioritized empirical state preservation, influencing colonial American adaptations while highlighting sedition's role in quelling factional threats through preemptive legal intervention.

United States Statutory Definition

In the , seditious conspiracy is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2384, which provides: "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the of the , conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the , or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any , or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both." This establishes the offense as a requiring at least two participants acting within U.S. , with the proscribed objectives centered on forceful actions against the federal government, its authority, laws, or property. The penalty structure reflects its classification as a serious , with capped at 20 years, fines determined under Title 18's general provisions (typically up to $250,000 for individuals), or both, emphasizing deterrence against organized threats to national stability. The law's language distinguishes it from related offenses like (18 U.S.C. § 2381), which requires adherence to enemies during , by focusing on domestic conspiracies involving without necessitating wartime context or individual acts of levying . It also overlaps with but is narrower than general under 18 U.S.C. § 371, as it targets specific seditious aims rather than any federal . Enacted in its current form as part of the broader revisions, the provision has remained substantively unchanged since its 1948 codification, drawing from earlier sedition laws but tailored to prohibit conspiratorial planning short of overt execution.

Elements of the Offense

The offense of seditious conspiracy, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2384, requires proof that two or more persons entered into an agreement to achieve one or more specific objectives directed against the government through the . The applies within any state, , or place subject to U.S. , emphasizing the agreement as the core criminal act rather than completed violence. The prohibited objectives are enumerated disjunctively and center on forceful interference with governmental authority: to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the of the ; to levy against it; to oppose by force its authority; by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any U.S. ; or by force to seize, take, or possess any U.S. contrary to its authority. Each objective incorporates an element of physical force or violence as the means of execution, distinguishing the crime from mere or non-violent opposition. The demands specific intent: participants must knowingly and willfully agree to employ force toward the prohibited ends, with shared understanding of the unlawful purpose. The is the formation of the conspiratorial agreement itself, without need for an in furtherance, unlike general under 18 U.S.C. § 371. This structure targets preparatory coordination for seditious violence, where the pact evidences a to national stability.

Historical Context

Post-Civil War Enactment

The seditious conspiracy statute was enacted on July 31, 1861, through "An Act to Define and Punish Certain Conspiracies," which targeted agreements by two or more persons to overthrow the government by force, oppose its authority, or prevent execution of its laws. This legislation imposed fines, imprisonment up to six years, or both, upon conviction, and authorized military trials for offenses committed where civil courts were closed due to . The act responded directly to the of Southern states and the outbreak of hostilities following the April 1861 attack on , aiming to criminalize organized resistance short of full-scale , which required proof of levying war or adhering to enemies with overt acts witnessed by two persons. Legislative debates from 1859 to 1861, culminating in the act's passage under Senator Lyman Trumbull's sponsorship, emphasized the need for a offense to address plots undermining federal authority before they escalated to armed conflict, as the Constitution's treason clause (Article III, Section 3) imposed evidentiary hurdles that hindered preemptive action. Proponents argued that seditious agreements, such as those forming Confederate military structures, posed an existential threat requiring federal intervention, distinct from mere or individual acts. The statute's scope extended to conspiracies preventing tax collection, law execution, or military operations, reflecting concerns over coordinated nullification efforts in slaveholding states. Although passed at the Civil War's outset, the law's framework anticipated persistent internal threats beyond active combat, including potential post-war insurrections by defeated factions unwilling to accept Union victory. However, no recorded convictions occurred under the statute during the war or immediate Reconstruction period, as prosecutions prioritized charges against high-profile Confederate leaders and shifted to civil rights for like activities. The provision endured through subsequent codifications, including the 1909 Penal Code and 1948 revision into 18 U.S.C. § 2384, maintaining its original punitive structure with penalties later increased to 20 years imprisonment.

Early Applications and Rarity

Following its enactment on July 14, 1861, as part of federal efforts to counter Confederate plots during the Civil War, the seditious conspiracy statute (codified today as 18 U.S.C. § 2384) saw minimal application in the immediate postwar decades. Prosecutors during Reconstruction primarily invoked charges against high-profile Confederate leaders or the of 1870 and 1871 (e.g., what became 18 U.S.C. § 241) to target conspiracies by groups like the aimed at depriving citizens of rights through intimidation and violence, rather than § 2384's focus on forcible opposition to federal authority or laws. Documented convictions under the specific seditious conspiracy provision prior to the remain scarce, with federal authorities favoring these alternatives amid the era's political sensitivities and evidentiary challenges in proving coordinated intent to use force against the government. The statute's early dormancy reflected broader , as overt rebellion had largely subsided post-Appomattox, and lesser conspiracy or obstruction offenses sufficed for sporadic subversive activities. Its revival began in the mid-20th century, notably with applications against Puerto Rican nationalists seeking independence; for instance, leaders of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party were convicted in 1955 of seditious conspiracy for orchestrating armed attacks, including the 1954 U.S. Capitol shooting by four members who wounded five congressmen. Earlier related cases, such as the 1937 conviction of for inciting violence during the , invoked charges akin to § 2384, though often blended with insular laws. These marked some of the first sustained uses, targeting groups plotting forcible separation from U.S. jurisdiction. Seditious conspiracy charges have historically been rare due to the offense's demanding elements: an explicit agreement by at least two persons to overthrow the , prevent execution, or seize by , coupled with an , distinguishing it from protected speech or failed plots lacking concrete violence. From the Civil War through the early 1900s, fewer than a handful of convictions occurred, as juries and courts required robust of imminent forcible action amid First Amendment concerns over mere advocacy. This scarcity persisted into the , with acquittals common—such as the 1988 Fort Smith trial where white supremacists plotting against federal officials were exonerated despite convictions—underscoring the charge's role as a high-threshold tool reserved for egregious, provable threats rather than routine dissent.

Prosecutions by Ideology and Era

Nationalist and Independence Movements

Puerto Rican nationalists seeking independence from the United States have faced seditious conspiracy charges on multiple occasions, primarily linked to the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party's armed campaigns in the mid-20th century. In 1936, Pedro Albizu Campos, leader of the party, and several associates were indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2384 for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government through violent means, including the distribution of propaganda and preparation for insurrection; Campos received a 10-year sentence after conviction. These charges stemmed from activities amid rising tensions over Puerto Rico's status following the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917, which granted U.S. citizenship but maintained colonial governance structures. The most prominent case arose from the party's 1950 uprising, which involved coordinated attacks on police stations and across on October 30, resulting in 28 deaths, including assailants and . This led to federal indictments in 1954 against 17 party members for a broader spanning 1947–1954 to violently seize power and establish an independent republic, incorporating the March 1, 1954, U.S. Capitol shooting by four nationalists—Lolita Lebrón, Rafael Miranda, Andres Figueroa Cordero, and Irving Flores Rodríguez—who fired pistols in the gallery, wounding five congressmen. Four defendants pleaded guilty, while 13 were convicted at trial in federal court in San Juan; sentences ranged from 15 to 75 years, upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1956. In the 1970s and 1980s, members of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN), a Marxist-Leninist group advocating Puerto Rican independence through bombings and robberies, faced similar prosecutions. On August 11, 1983, 11 FALN suspects were arrested in and , charged with seditious conspiracy for a campaign from 1974–1983 that included over 120 bombings targeting U.S. military and corporate sites, causing six deaths and $4 million in damage; 10 were convicted in 1985–1986, receiving sentences of 35 to 90 years. Among them was Oscar López Rivera, convicted in 1981 of seditious conspiracy, armed robbery, and weapons offenses tied to FALN's truck heists and explosives manufacturing; he served 35 years before commuting by President Obama in 2017, excluding five years for good behavior. These cases marked a revival of the rarely invoked statute against independence advocates, with prosecutors emphasizing overt acts like weapon stockpiling and target scouting as evidence of intent to oppose U.S. authority by force. No comparable seditious conspiracy prosecutions have targeted other U.S. nationalist or secessionist groups, such as Hawaiian sovereignty activists, despite occasional rhetoric of separation.

Islamist Militant Plots

In 1993, Egyptian cleric , known as the "Blind Sheikh," and a group of followers associated with Egyptian Islamic Group (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya) plotted a series of bombings in targeting symbols of U.S. authority, including the headquarters, the FBI's New York office, and several tunnels and bridges such as the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and the . The scheme, described in federal indictments as a "seditious conspiracy to levy a war of urban against the ," involved acquiring explosives and conducting to execute coordinated attacks intended to coerce the government into releasing imprisoned militants and withdrawing support for . Abdel-Rahman, who had issued fatwas endorsing violence against the and was linked to the 1981 assassination attempt on Egyptian President , directed the cell from mosques in and New York, recruiting operatives including Egyptian nationals and U.S. residents radicalized through his sermons. Key evidence included wiretapped conversations, undercover recordings, and seized documents outlining attack plans, which prosecutors argued demonstrated an agreement to oppose government authority by force under 18 U.S.C. § 2384. The plot was foiled by FBI informants, leading to arrests in June 1993 shortly after the separate February , which some defendants aided logistically but for which Abdel-Rahman was not directly charged. In January 1996, following a nine-month trial in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Abdel-Rahman and nine co-defendants were convicted of seditious conspiracy, along with related counts of bombing conspiracy, solicitation of murder, and firearms offenses. Abdel-Rahman received a life sentence without parole, while others, including plot leader Siddig Ali and bomb-maker Clement Rodney Hampton-El, were sentenced to terms ranging from 25 years to life; appeals challenging the statute's application to "urban terrorism" as protected speech were rejected by higher courts, affirming the convictions based on overt acts proving intent to use force against government operations. No subsequent seditious conspiracy prosecutions against Islamist militants have resulted in convictions, with post-9/11 cases typically pursued under material support statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2339B rather than sedition charges.

Domestic Militia and Extremist Groups

In March 2010, federal authorities indicted nine members of the , a self-described Christian group based in rural , on charges including seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, alleging they plotted to levy war against the by killing police officers to provoke a broader uprising. The indictment claimed the group viewed the federal government as an enemy influenced by the , with plans to ambush during a staged exercise, follow with bombings at funerals using weapons of mass destruction, and ignite a national conflict against perceived tyranny. leader David Brian Stone Sr. and others had trained with firearms and discussed tactics in recorded conversations, but prosecutors emphasized the group's apocalyptic ideology as motivation for coordinated violence rather than mere . The case represented one of the few modern applications of seditious conspiracy against a domestic prior to 2021, amid heightened scrutiny of anti-government extremists following the and election of President . However, after a 2012 trial, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts issued a directed on the seditious conspiracy and weapons of mass destruction charges for seven defendants, ruling that evidence of "loose talk and extravagant language" expressing hostility toward authorities did not prove an actual agreement to forcibly oppose the government, distinguishing ideological venting—protected under the First Amendment—from . The remaining two defendants, Michael Meeks and Joshua Clough, pleaded guilty to lesser firearms offenses, receiving sentences of 32 months and time served, respectively, while others were released after exceeding two years. This outcome underscored the statute's high evidentiary threshold for domestic groups, where prosecutors must demonstrate overt acts toward violence beyond ideological organizing or training, a bar rarely met in militia cases outside foreign-influenced plots. No other successful seditious conspiracy convictions against U.S. or domestic extremist organizations occurred between the acquittals and the early 2020s, reflecting judicial caution against broadening the offense to encompass preparedness absent imminent threats. Federal monitoring of such groups intensified post-2010, with the FBI identifying as a domestic terrorism priority due to stockpiling of weapons and anti-government rhetoric, yet prosecutions typically resulted in weapons or material support charges rather than sedition.

January 6, 2021 Capitol Breach Cases

The U.S. Department of Justice brought seditious conspiracy charges against members of the and in connection with the , 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, alleging that they conspired to use force to oppose the certification of the 2020 presidential election results and prevent the transfer of power to President-elect . These charges, under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, were based on evidence including encrypted communications, planning documents, and coordinated actions such as preparations for a "quick reaction force" outside Washington, D.C., to support operations at the Capitol. By mid-2023, at least 18 individuals had been charged with seditious conspiracy related to the events, marking the largest number of such convictions in U.S. history for a single incident. In the Oath Keepers cases, founder Stewart Rhodes and subordinate Kelly Meggs were convicted of seditious conspiracy in the first trial concluding on November 29, 2022, following evidence of their group's organized entry into the Capitol and prior discussions of opposing government authority by force if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act. Rhodes received an 18-year sentence on May 25, 2023, while Meggs was sentenced to 12 years; additional Oath Keepers, including Roberto Minuta, David Moerschel, and Ed Vallejo, were convicted in subsequent trials by June 2023, with sentences ranging from 8 to 15 years. In total, five Oath Keepers were found guilty of the charge, though some co-defendants like Jessica Watkins were acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted on related offenses such as obstruction of an official proceeding. The prosecutions yielded four seditious convictions from a ending May 4, 2023, involving leaders Joseph Biggs, , Zachary Rehl, and Pezzola's subordinate actions, supported by Telegram messages coordinating the group's response to perceived election fraud and intent to halt certification. Former national chairman , who was not physically present at the Capitol, was convicted separately on October 4, 2023, for directing the remotely, receiving a 22-year sentence on September 5, 2023—the longest imposed in cases at that time. Biggs, Nordean, and Rehl received sentences of 17 to 20 years each by September 2023. Pezzola was acquitted of seditious but convicted on other charges. No other groups faced seditious conspiracy charges for the breach, distinguishing these cases from broader and prosecutions exceeding 1,200 individuals by early 2025. On January 21, 2025, President issued clemency that commuted or pardoned sentences for many defendants, including Rhodes and Tarrio, effectively releasing key figures convicted of seditious conspiracy. These outcomes followed trials where defense arguments centered on lack of unified force against the government and First Amendment protections for political expression, though juries found the planning and coordination met the statutory threshold.

Challenges to the Statute's Scope

The seditious conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2384, has been challenged on grounds of vagueness, with critics arguing that terms like "force" and "authority of the United States" fail to provide sufficient clarity for defendants to anticipate criminal liability. In United States v. Rahman (189 F.3d 88, 2d Cir. 1999), defendants convicted in connection with plots to bomb New York City landmarks contended the statute was unconstitutionally vague, but the Second Circuit rejected this, holding that the requirement of an agreement to employ physical force or violence against the government provides adequate notice and cabines prosecutorial discretion. Similarly, overbreadth claims—that the law could sweep in protected advocacy without force—have been dismissed, as courts emphasize the statute targets conspiratorial agreements involving force, not abstract speech or belief. As-applied challenges have occasionally succeeded by questioning whether specific conduct falls within the statute's narrow ambit, which demands proof of to oppose governmental through rather than mere disruption or generalized opposition. In the 2010 Hutaree militia case, a federal judge in dismissed seditious conspiracy charges against seven defendants in 2012, ruling that evidence of their anti-government training and discussions of future rebellion did not demonstrate a concrete agreement to forcibly oppose U.S. , as plans remained too speculative and lacked identifiable overt acts targeting government functions. The court found the allegations described "hot talk" rather than an actionable plot, highlighting the statute's high evidentiary threshold for proving directed at itself, not incidental . In prosecutions stemming from the , 2021, Capitol breach, defendants from groups like the and have contested the statute's scope by arguing their coordinated actions—such as breaching barriers and entering the building—constituted protected protest or trespass, not a to forcibly prevent execution of the or seize congressional proceedings. While juries convicted leaders including (sentenced to 12 years in 2023) and figures like Joseph Biggs (sentenced to 17 years in 2023), finding sufficient evidence of premeditated force to oppose federal authority, appeals have pressed evidentiary limits on the "force" element, asserting it requires direct armed assault on government rather than interference with legislative processes. As of early 2025, core convictions have withstood initial reviews, though clemency granted by President Trump to figures like underscores ongoing debates over applying a Civil War-era law to contemporary political unrest without clearer delineation of overthrowing intent. Critics further argue the statute's scope, originally enacted in to combat Confederate , risks elastic expansion beyond armed insurrections to encompass riots or organized lacking existential to the state, potentially conflating policy opposition with forcible . Courts have countered by interpreting "force" to mean physical compulsion or intimidation specifically against governmental operations, distinguishing it from lesser crimes like obstruction, as affirmed in post-January 6 rulings that demand proof of collective agreement to undermine , not isolated violence. These interpretations preserve the law's rarity—fewer than 20 federal convictions prior to —while fueling contention that its post-Civil War framing inadequately addresses modern thresholds for "seditious" acts amid polarized enforcement.

First Amendment Implications

The seditious conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2384, criminalizes agreements by two or more persons to overthrow the U.S. government or oppose its authority "by force," prompting First Amendment scrutiny over whether such prosecutions impermissibly punish speech or association critical of government. Courts have uniformly rejected facial constitutional challenges, holding that the statute targets conspiratorial agreements involving intended or violence, which fall outside protections for abstract advocacy or political expression under (1969), which immunizes speech absent incitement to . In (1957), the reversed convictions under the for conspiring to advocate overthrow of the government, ruling that the First Amendment safeguards "the teaching and advocacy of abstract doctrine" but not specific to unlawful action through force or violence as a means of achievement. This distinction has shaped seditious conspiracy , emphasizing that § 2384 requires proof of intent to employ force—evidenced by planning, procurement of weapons, or coordinated acts—rather than mere rhetorical opposition or ideological association. Legal scholars note that while conspiracy doctrines broadly can chill speech by punishing preemptive agreements, the force element in § 2384 narrows its scope to unprotected conduct, mitigating overbreadth risks. Federal appellate courts have upheld the statute's constitutionality as applied in cases involving violent plots, such as United States v. Rahman (2d Cir. 1999), where convictions of Islamist militants for plotting bombings were affirmed despite First Amendment claims; the court reasoned that § 2384 proscribes only conspiracies to violate laws by force, not "mere advocacy of the use of force or violation of law" absent agreement to act. Similarly, in prosecutions of domestic groups like the for 1995 plots, courts rejected arguments that preparatory discussions constituted protected speech, citing evidence of armed reconnaissance and intent to forcibly seize federal property. In the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach prosecutions, defendants including leaders invoked the First Amendment to challenge seditious conspiracy indictments, contending their encrypted communications and rally preparations were political expression rather than forcible conspiracy. U.S. District Judge dismissed such defenses pretrial, ruling that evidence of stockpiled weapons, tactical gear, and coordinated disruption of electoral certification demonstrated agreement to oppose lawful authority by force, unprotected under and Yates. Juries convicted figures like leader and chairman on these charges in 2022–2023, with appeals centering on evidentiary sufficiency rather than facial invalidity, underscoring judicial consensus that § 2384 survives as-applied First Amendment review when force intent is proven. Critics, including defense attorneys in rare post-conviction challenges, argue that § 2384's lack of an overt-act requirement risks ensnaring expressive planning, potentially enabling against ideologies; however, empirical data from prosecutions—predominantly against groups employing or intending violence, such as Islamist networks (e.g., 1993 World Trade Center plotters) and militias—shows consistent application tied to tangible forcible elements, not ideological speech alone. No decision has invalidated § 2384, affirming its compatibility with First Amendment limits on unprotected conspiratorial conduct.

Claims of Prosecutorial Overreach

Defense attorneys in seditious conspiracy trials stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach have alleged prosecutorial overreach, contending that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stretched the statute's requirements beyond the presented. The seditious conspiracy law, 18 U.S.C. § 2384, requires proof of an agreement by two or more persons to overthrow the government by force, oppose its authority by force, or prevent the execution of any law by force. Critics argue that while defendants like leader discussed contingency plans involving armed support for then-President Trump, these did not constitute a specific agreement to forcibly oppose federal authority, as the group positioned their preparations as defensive against anticipated civil unrest rather than an offensive plot against the government. In the Oath Keepers' cases, including the conviction of chapter leader , who received a 12-year sentence alongside ' 18 years, defense counsel maintained that prosecutors overstated the group's actions—such as stacking up to enter the Capitol and storing weapons in a hotel—as evidence of a coordinated forcible opposition, when testimony and communications suggested aims limited to protecting lawmakers or supporting electoral challenges without direct intent to subvert law execution by violence. Similar claims arose in the trials, where former leader , sentenced to 22 years, publicly denounced the charges as overreach, asserting that leadership discussions and street-level activities on did not meet the threshold for seditious agreement, particularly absent proof of unified force against official proceedings beyond rhetorical escalation. These assertions of overreach gained partial validation in related litigation, as the in Fischer v. (2024) ruled 6-3 that DOJ had improperly expanded the scope of an obstruction (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)) to encompass rioters' conduct, narrowing its application and prompting dismissals or resentencings in over 300 cases; though not directly governing seditious conspiracy, the decision underscored concerns over prosecutorial theories lacking historical precedent for non-document-destruction interference with congressional functions. Legal observers, including some conservative analysts, have highlighted the rarity of seditious conspiracy convictions—fewer than a dozen federally since , mostly tied to explicit plots like the 1995 precursors—questioning whether evidence, involving disorganized entry and no firearms discharge at the Capitol, justified reviving the charge after nearly three decades of disuse, potentially signaling amid perceptions of DOJ politicization under the Biden administration.

Recent Pardons and Political Repercussions

On January 20, 2025, President issued a granting clemency to nearly 1,600 individuals involved in the events at or near the U.S. Capitol on , 2021, encompassing full s for most defendants and commutations of sentences for 14 members of groups like the and convicted of seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 2384. Among those receiving commutations was , founder of the , sentenced to 18 years for seditious conspiracy in planning armed response stacks and quick-reaction teams during the Capitol events. , former chairman, received a full after a 22-year sentence for seditious conspiracy tied to organizing encrypted communications and seditious aims against the government. Kelly Meggs, leader of the ' chapter, had his 12-year sentence for seditious conspiracy commuted to time served; he was convicted for coordinating a civil unrest team and stockpiling weapons in hotels ahead of 6. Other recipients included and Kenneth Harrelson, whose sentences for related seditious conspiracy roles were similarly commuted. These actions fulfilled Trump's pre-inauguration pledges to address what he described as politically motivated prosecutions of non-violent participants and those charged with rare seditious offenses. The pardons sparked sharp political divisions. Democratic figures, such as Representative Norma Torres and Representative Seth Moulton, denounced them as rewarding insurrection and eroding accountability for assaults on over 140 law enforcement officers. Polls indicated broad public opposition, with 73% of Americans, including 54% of Republicans, against pardoning those convicted of assaulting Capitol Police. Among Republicans, Senator Lindsey Graham criticized pardons for violent offenders who "beat up a police officer," highlighting intra-party tensions. Supporters, including Trump allies, hailed the clemency as rectifying DOJ overreach in applying an infrequently used statute—successful in only a handful of cases since 1940—to events they characterized as a against contested certification rather than coordinated . Post-pardon, figures like Tarrio and leaders pursued civil suits alleging constitutional violations in their prosecutions, amplifying debates over the statute's application to political expression. Critics from outlets like the Brennan Center argued the moves endorsed threats to democratic transitions, while proponents countered that selective enforcement revealed institutional biases favoring certain ideologies. The episode fueled ongoing scrutiny of powers, with some analysts predicting long-term erosion of deterrence against organized challenges to federal authority.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
  2. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap115-sec2384.pdf
  3. https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2384/
  4. https://versustexas.com/seditious-conspiracy/
  5. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115
  6. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/explainer-the-seditious-conspiracy-charges-in-jan-6-trial/
  7. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-government-and-politics-capitol-siege-809273dd6e90d08a5109dd5a451a5c09
  8. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/four-additional-oath-keepers-sentenced-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
  9. https://www.nslj.org/wp-content/uploads/Keppler-Breathing-New-Life-Into-an-Old-Statute.pdf
  10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4048812
  11. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sedition-in-the-common-law-jurisdictions-uk-usa-and-india/
  12. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sedition
  13. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/context/wmlr/article/4036/viewcontent/wmlr65_no6_p1409_turley.pdf
  14. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/william-blackstone/
  15. https://www.jackmillercenter.org/our-work/resources/blackstones-commentaries
  16. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section3571&num=0&edition=prelim
  17. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap115-sec2384
  18. https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-insurrection-and-sedition
  19. https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/2021%2520Chapter%25206%2520Conspiracy%2520for%2520posting%2520final.pdf
  20. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41223
  21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/844230
  22. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/seditious-conspiracy-real-domestic-terrorism-statute
  23. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-the-rare-sedition-charge-at-center-of-jan-6-insurrection-trial
  24. https://www.nytimes.com/1955/05/11/archives/sedition-appeal-lost-court-affirms-convictions-of-13-in-puerto.html
  25. https://law.stanford.edu/2022/12/01/stanfords-david-a-sklansky-on-oath-keepers-seditious-conspiracy-convictions/
  26. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/01/15/seditious-conspiracy-charges/
  27. https://www.latinorebels.com/2023/02/16/puertoricoindependencenationalism/
  28. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/when-extremists-stormed-capitol-and-got-convicted-seditious-conspiracy
  29. https://www.nytimes.com/1955/03/11/archives/10-puerto-ricans-guilty-of-plots-nationalist-party-members.html
  30. https://peopleslawoffice.com/the-legal-work-defending-independentistas-in-the-u-s/
  31. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/weekinreview/us-deusts-off-an-old-law.html
  32. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=faculty-articles
  33. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/854/254/1954616/
  34. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63802649
  35. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/proud-boys-leader-tarrio-indicted-us-seditious-conspiracy-charge-2022-06-06/
  36. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/28/seditious-conspiracy-charges-trial-oath-keepers-us-court
  37. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/nyregion/omar-abdel-rahman-memories-1993-world-trade-center-attack.html
  38. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-arrests-far-right-militia-group-oath-keepers-leader-jan-6-probe-nyt-2022-01-13/
  39. http://www.cecc.gov/united-states-v-rahman
  40. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/02/oath-keepers-convicted-00071669
  41. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/nine-members-militia-group-charged-seditious-conspiracy-and-related-charges
  42. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/last-time-justice-department-prosecuted-seditious-conspiracy-case
  43. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/directed-acquittal-seditious-conspiracy-prosecution-hutaree-militia-members
  44. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-17530731
  45. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/01/1076349762/oath-keepers-charged-capitol-riot-seditious-conspiracy
  46. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/domestic-terrorism-focus-on-militia-extremism
  47. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
  48. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/jury-convicts-four-leaders-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
  49. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/court-sentences-two-oath-keepers-leaders-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related-us
  50. https://democrats-cha.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-cha.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025_01_06_January_6_Report_CHA.pdf
  51. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/27/1178600441/oath-keepers-capitol-attack-sentenced
  52. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/proud-boys-leaders-sentenced-prison-roles-jan-6-capitol-breach
  53. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/26/politics/january-6-rioters-charges-convictions-dg
  54. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trumps-jan-6-clemency-releases-former-proud-boys-leader-oath-keepers-founder-from-lengthy-sentences
  55. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/11/1175465857/extremists-groups-were-found-guilty-of-seditious-conspiracy-for-jan-6-now-what
  56. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/1011788.html
  57. https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2012/03/conspiracy_charges_dropped_aga.html
  58. https://www.wbur.org/npr/1076349762/oath-keepers-charged-capitol-riot-seditious-conspiracy
  59. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/seditious-conspiracy-what-make-latest-oath-keepers-indictment
  60. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/oath-keepers-stewart-rhodes-released-prison-trump-clemency/3746604/
  61. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/298/
  62. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=jcl
  63. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/judge-rejects-first-amendment-defense-in-jan-6-capitol-case/
  64. https://www.mississippifreepress.org/seditious-conspiracy-charge-against-jan-6-rioters-face-first-amendment-hurdle/
  65. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/10/03/oath-keepers-trial-openings-rhodes/
  66. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oath-keepers-seditious-conspiracy-second-trial-begins-today-2022-12-12/
  67. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ex-proud-boys-head-enrique-tarrio-twitter-spaces-doj-jury-rcna81543
  68. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-22-years-prison-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related
  69. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-narrows-law-used-against-some-jan-6-rioters-f77b681d
  70. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c199l00gmmvo
  71. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/
  72. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/most-high-profile-jan-6-defendants-receive-clemency-trump-2025-01-21/
  73. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/stewart-rhodes-convicted-of-seditious-conspiracy-and-released-by-trump-visits-capitol-hill
  74. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/g-s1-36809/trump-pardons-january-6-riot
  75. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2025/01/22/trump-pardons-proud-boys-oath-keepers-leaders/77861478007/
  76. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/23/the-january-6-pardons-who-has-trump-ordered-to-be-released
  77. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-set-pardon-defendants-stormed-capitol-jan-6-2021-rcna187735
  78. https://torres.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congresswoman-norma-torres-condemns-president-trumps-pardons-of-january-6th-insurrectionists
  79. http://moulton.house.gov/news/press-releases/moulton-statement-trump-january-6th-pardons
  80. https://protectdemocracy.org/work/new-poll-republicans-oppose-jan-6-pardons/
  81. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79dlyzvnvxo
  82. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/22/trump-pardons-republicans
  83. https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-supporters-celebrate-pardon-of-jan-6-rioters-/7944388.html
  84. https://www.axios.com/2025/06/06/proud-boys-leaders-pardoned-by-trump-sue-over-jan-6-convictions
  85. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trump-pardoning-jan-6-insurrectionists-would-endorse-attacks-democracy
  86. https://law.stanford.edu/podcast/trumps-pardons-political-violence-hate-groups-and-the-rule-of-law/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.