As ICE protesters like ‘Spokane 3’ are targeted, many still stand up

A year ago, as the nation’s attention was focused on the surge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions in Los Angeles, a less publicized confrontation was taking shape much closer to home.

In Spokane almost exactly a year ago, former Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart put out a call on social media for community members to come out and attempt to prevent ICE from taking two Venezuelan migrants to the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma. The migrants were in the U.S. legally but had outstanding immigration-related warrants. 

Hundreds of people answered the call and more than 30 were arrested at the June 11, 2025, protest that has since come to serve as a critical test case of the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to crushing dissent and civil disobedience.

The next day, the U.S. Justice Department sent an email to 93 U.S. attorneys ordering them to prioritize cases against people protesting immigration enforcement and to ensure the cases were publicized. 

Richard Barker, the then-acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, resigned before the indictments were filed, saying he did not feel the indictments were warranted, The New York Times reported.

While most of the arrests were dismissed, nine people were charged with federal felonies, six — including Stuckart — accepted plea deals for lesser charges and three rejected pleas and went to trial because they argued their First Amendment rights were violated. 

On May 28, a jury convicted the protesters, now known as the “Spokane 3,” under federal conspiracy charges. A rule 29 motion to set the verdict aside was submitted and appeals are expected, but protesters Bajun Mavalwalla II, Justice Forral and Jac Archer could face up to six years in prison and hundreds of thousands in fines if the verdict stands.

The case has far-reaching implications beyond Washington state, as the verdict will likely embolden the administration to pursue more conspiracy charges against protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. 

Liz Moore, the executive director of the Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane, or PJALS, worked closely with Archer when they worked as an organizer for the group. She and PJALS supported the activists in the courtroom and beyond and described Archer as someone with “an incredible commitment to welcoming new people in and helping them, supporting them, and taking action in really strategic ways.” 

Moore said the verdict is devastating. “To really witness the weight of the U.S. government being turned against these three community activists,” she said.

She said just as authoritarian political repression is not new, neither is nonviolent civil disobedience. As the country looks ahead in just a few weeks to the America 250 commemoration, Moore said it’s a complex moment to reflect on our country’s past and promise.

In addition to past and current violence and oppression, there’s also a long history of “people showing up for what they believe in, even when there’s a risk to it,” she said. “I think that while we critique and acknowledge the violence and oppression, we also are served when we recognize the other part of our collective history.”

Moore said it’s important to “root into” that collective history as we try to meet this moment. 

David Owens is an assistant professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law and partner at the Loevy and Loevy law firm in Chicago, which supported a coalition of Chicago protesters, journalists and clergy who alleged abuse by federal immigration officers during that city’s immigration crackdown last September.  

He said the right to protest and peaceably assemble is such a strong principle that it’s enshrined in the First Amendment and that protest has long been a vital part of securing liberty and freedom.

Owens said these federal prosecutions are part of a pattern of political weaponization to repress protest and dissent. 

“It’s really clear that the federal government is targeting people for prosecution and treatment based upon their political beliefs, based upon people’s refusal to stand by idly and watch egregious behavior occur on our streets by federal agents,” he said.

As an example, the same government that is prosecuting people for protesting ICE actions pardoned Jan. 6 rioters and President Donald Trump even tried — and so far failed — to set up a $1.8 billion fund to compensate them.

A consequence of this repression is many people questioning whether they should speak out against the atrocities they are seeing.

“If you have to hesitate to speak out against the government, a harm has already occurred,” Owens said. “If you have to second-guess yourself … whether I’m able to post that, whether I’m able to attend a rally, for fear of reprisals from the government, your rights have already been compromised.”

Owens pointed out that in city after city facing immigration crackdowns, after the sustained collective action of individual people, the federal agents eventually left. “People must continue to speak out, people must continue to record, people must continue to stand up. It’s really the collective action that’s necessary,” he said. “If there are folks who see these convictions or see these prosecutions and think they are wrong, that is all the more reason that people must continue to speak out.”

Moore said that despite the risk, whether it’s in Los Angeles, Maine, Minnesota, Spokane or a small town in northeastern Washington, people are still standing up. 

“It’s really brave to stand up to the authoritarian Department of Justice, and it’s really brave to blow the whistle on ICE, and it’s really brave to show up for each other, and it’s moving to know that there are thousands of people across the country who are really being brave together right now,” she said. “It’s really moving to witness that people will not be quiet and be intimidated in the face of injustice.”