Spokane activists head to trial in federal protest obstruction case

Three Spokane activists will head to trial in federal court over a protest outside a Homeland Security facility that prosecutors say crossed the line from dissent into conspiracy. Jac Archer, Justice Forral and Bajun Mavalwalla II will face jurors starting May 18 after a federal judge denied their motions to dismiss a charge of conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 372, a statute that carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison.

The case stems from a June 11, 2025, protest at the Spokane ICE and Department of Homeland Security facility after former Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart posted a Facebook call to action asking the public to come to the building. Federal prosecutors say the demonstration was aimed at stopping Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from removing two young Venezuelan men who were in the United States legally. Prosecutors also say demonstrators blocked exits and boxed in or disabled an ICE transport vehicle.

Nine people were originally indicted in July 2025, and six later accepted plea deals, leaving Archer, Forral and Mavalwalla II as the remaining defendants. Two of the nine were also charged with assaulting a federal officer. Local police made dozens of arrests during the protest, though many of the local charges were later dropped.

What prosecutors will have to prove is the central legal question in the case: not simply that the defendants were present at a turbulent protest, but that they agreed to interfere with federal officers in a coordinated way. That is why legal experts have described the charge as a stretch and why civil-liberties advocates see the trial as a possible precedent for turning protest organizing itself into a federal conspiracy case.

The stakes extend beyond Spokane. The unusual use of a statute aimed at conspiracy against federal officers has drawn attention because it could show how far the Trump administration is willing to go in treating immigration-related protest activity as a law-enforcement threat. Supporters of the defendants say the case criminalizes protected speech and assembly. Prosecutors say the defendants did more than protest and crossed into obstruction of federal law enforcement. The verdict will help define where that line runs.