United States v. Daley

District Court, W.D. Virginia
378 F. Supp. 3d 539 (2019)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Federal Anti-Riot Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2101, is constitutional because it permissibly regulates interstate travel intended to incite or participate in riots, which are unprotected acts of violence, and does not violate the First Amendment or exceed Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.

Facts:

Benjamin Daley, Michael Miselis, and Thomas Gillen were residents of California and associated with the 'Rise Above Movement' (RAM), a white-supremacist organization.
Between March and August 2017, the defendants and other RAM members traveled to multiple political rallies in California and Virginia.
On March 25, 2017, the defendants traveled to a political rally in Huntington Beach, California, and engaged in acts of violence.
On April 15, 2017, the defendants traveled to a political rally in Berkeley, California, and again committed acts of violence.
In August 2017, the defendants purchased commercial flights from California to Charlottesville, Virginia, and reserved lodging for the dates of the 'Unite the Right' rally.
After arriving in Charlottesville on August 11, 2017, the defendants purchased athletic tape and baseball helmets.
On the evening of August 11, 2017, the defendants attended a torch-lit march at the University of Virginia where they incited and committed acts of violence in furtherance of a riot.
On August 12, 2017, after wrapping their hands with athletic tape, the defendants attended the 'Unite the Right' rally where they again incited and committed acts of violence.

Procedural Posture:

Benjamin Daley, Michael Miselis, and Thomas Gillen were indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, which is a federal trial court.
The indictment charged the defendants with one count of conspiracy to violate the Federal Anti-Riot Act (18 U.S.C. § 371) and one count of traveling in interstate commerce with intent to riot in violation of the Act (18 U.S.C. § 2101).
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Federal Anti-Riot Act is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to them.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Federal Anti-Riot Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2101, facially violate the Constitution on grounds of vagueness, overbreadth, improper criminalization of speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio, or by exceeding Congress's Commerce Clause authority?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Norman K. Moon

No, the Federal Anti-Riot Act is not unconstitutional. The Act is upheld against facial challenges because it targets unprotected conduct and is a valid exercise of congressional power. The statute is not void for vagueness, as terms like 'riot' and 'incite' have settled legal meanings and provide adequate notice of the proscribed conduct. It is not overbroad because it is narrowly tailored to the government's substantial interest in public safety and proscribes only violence or unprotected incitement, explicitly excluding mere advocacy of ideas. The Act satisfies the Brandenburg incitement test by requiring that the speech be directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action, given its definition of 'riot' involves a 'clear and present danger' of violence. Finally, the statute is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause because it contains a clear jurisdictional element, regulating persons who use the channels of interstate commerce with criminal intent.

Analysis:

This decision provides a significant modern affirmation of the constitutionality of the 1968 Federal Anti-Riot Act, a statute that had been rarely prosecuted for decades. By systematically rejecting vagueness, overbreadth, incitement, and Commerce Clause challenges, the court established a precedent for its use against individuals who travel across state lines to engage in political violence. The court's careful interpretation, ensuring the Act aligns with the Supreme Court's incitement test from Brandenburg, is critical for distinguishing between protected, though extreme, political speech and unprotected, violent conduct, thereby shaping the legal boundaries for prosecuting politically motivated violence in the future.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Daley (2019)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"