Natasha Hill and Sarah Harmon: Spokane 3 verdict shows erosion of First Amendment

By Natasha Hill and Sarah Harmon

In Spokane, a federal prosecution tested the boundaries of the First Amendment. The results came on Thursday in the form of guilty verdicts for three local protesters, Jac Archer, Justice Forral and Bajun Mavalwalla II, the Spokane 3.

Legal observers fear these convictions further erode First Amendment protections, limiting the people’s right to dissent. This puts Spokane at the center of a national legal and moral question: Will protests increasingly be treated as a public safety threat rather than a democratic right?

The Spokane 3 were tried over the past two weeks on charges of conspiracy to use force, threat or intimidation to impede ICE operations. The charges were related to demonstrations outside the Spokane ICE facility in June 2025. Many protesters were motivated by concerns over unlawful immigration enforcement and human rights violations.

Prosecutors argued the defendants crossed a legal line from protest into criminal conduct. Defense attorneys argued the government is stretching vague conspiracy theories and intimidation statutes to criminalize collective protest activity itself and punish dissent.

This trial arrived during one of the most politically contradictory moments in modern American legal history. The same federal regime that defended, ultimately pardoned, and may pay individuals involved in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, aggressively pursued charges against nonviolent protesters. This contradiction matters.

The issue is not whether protesters should be prosecuted if they break the law. They can and often are. For example, if protesters trespass, destroy property or don’t follow lawful commands from law enforcement, they can be charged with those offenses. These charges must align with our constitutional framework and be consistently applied to maintain public trust.

Constitutional principles cannot survive if they are applied selectively based on politics, race, ideology, identity or proximity to power, and not based on provable conduct. That is what makes the Spokane 3 trial so consequential and why their identities matter.

All three are people of color. Two are nonbinary. One is a recent law school graduate. One is a member of the Spokane Human Rights Commission. And one is a decorated veteran, whose father is running for Congress against Trump loyalist Michael Baumgartner. They were convicted by an all white jury that arguably did not reflect a jury of their peers.

America has seen marginalized groups disproportionately targeted and abused by law enforcement throughout history, including labor organizers, civil rights leaders, LGBTQ+ advocates, anti-war activists, Black liberation movements and environmental protesters.

When communities believe the law is enforced differently depending on who you are, faith in democratic institutions deteriorates. When wealthy political insiders receive pardons, fundraising support and media rehabilitation, while grassroots activists face years of federal prosecution, Americans absorb a devastating message: Accountability is negotiable for the powerful and privileged, and absolute for everyone else.

A constitutional democracy depends on public trust – that the rules apply to everyone. Without that trust, cynicism replaces civic participation. Fear replaces protest. Silence replaces engagement.

Critically, the First Amendment does not protect only polite, convenient or government-approved speech. It exists precisely to protect dissent during moments of tension and public conflict. If protest organizers can face federal conspiracy prosecution because a crowd became loud, blocked movement, or escalated unpredictably, then the practical right to assemble disappears. The right to dissent erodes. And prosecutions hinge on who you are, not what you do.

This should concern anyone who believes rights must survive changes in political power. Our constitutional framework is bigger than which political party holds majority leadership. Constitutional protections must apply universally, or they are not protections at all, they are weapons.

Expanding state power at the expense of constitutional freedoms puts our rights at serious risk. Federal conspiracy statutes allow prosecutors to transform association or collaboration into criminal liability. In practice, conspiracy law permits the government to argue that speech, group messaging, planning or proximity demonstrates criminal agreement.

The Spokane 3 trial was ultimately about more than three defendants. It is about whether America still distinguishes between the right to protest and dissent against the state, and criminality; whether federal power has meaningful limits and our freedoms remain durable during politically polarized times.

The unique aspect of the current democratic erosion of our Constitution under this administration is the rapid pace, which amplifies the stakes.

As Americans, we have a duty and the right to use our voices to dissent, to exercise our right to vote, and to demand our government protects Constitutional rights. We cannot afford to remain silent. The future of our First Amendment rights depends on it.

Natasha Hill is an attorney and state legislator. Sarah Harmon is an attorney and the faculty director of Gonzaga University School of Law’s Center for Civil and Human Rights. Both live in Spokane. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal, and do not represent the views or policies of Gonzaga University or the Washington state Legislature.