Antifa

DOJ Case Against Minneapolis Antifa Groups Has Concerning First Amendment Implications

"This indictment appears to be going way overboard, using a sledgehammer to address what might have been some infractions."

Joe Lancaster | 6.25.2026 10:31 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Holden Smith/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom/Benjamin Hanson/MEI/SIPA)

Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of 15 Minnesota activists. The charges included conspiracy to injure or impede a federal officer, which carries a penalty of up to six years in prison.

According to the indictment, the activists are members of "an organization dedicated and committed to direct action against federal law and immigration enforcement." It further alleges that they are part of the loose assemblage of antifascist activists known as antifa.

In a statement, the White House called the indictment a "crushing blow" to "the violent anarchist network." Instead, it seems like another example of the Trump administration taking a overly heavy hand against people the administration doesn't like.

Prosecutors say the defendants acted collectively to obstruct federal law enforcement officers moving in or out of the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area. (The Trump administration deployed federal immigration officers to the city last year, in what it called Operation Metro Surge. As CNN reported in January, the Whipple building "is home base for the immigration proceedings at the heart of the crackdown in the state.")

According to the indictment, protesters set up roadblocks in an attempt to obstruct federal immigration officers traveling in or out of the building.

While roadblocks may be illegal—not to mention annoying—they don't constitute violence, or a conspiracy to use violence, against a federal officer, like the indictment claims. "It's really hard for me to come up with anything they were talking about doing that would be actually........

© Reason.com