By Jonathan Reed | | London, UK
SPOKANE, WA — Bajun Mavalwalla, a decorated U.S. Military veteran, is at the center of a landmark legal case that has reignited national debates over the criminalization of protests and the scope of conspiracy charges under federal law. Last week, a federal jury in Spokane, Washington, convicted Mavalwalla and two others—collectively known as the “Spokane Three”—on felony conspiracy charges for their participation in a June 2023 protest aimed at blocking an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bus transfer of detained immigrants. The trio now faces up to six years in prison, though their sentencing is pending. Their conviction marks a rare instance where protesters were charged under 18 U.S. Code § 371, the federal conspiracy statute, for actions that did not result in violence or direct harm to officers.
The case has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, civil liberties advocates and even some lawmakers, who argue that the charges represent an overreach by federal prosecutors. “What we’re seeing here is a troubling expansion of how conspiracy laws are applied to nonviolent civil disobedience,” said Aaron Glantz, a journalist and author who has tracked ICE enforcement policies. “This wasn’t an assault. It wasn’t even a blockade that caused disruption. It was a group of people sitting in front of a bus.”
For Mavalwalla, 52, the conviction carries personal and professional stakes. A former U.S. Army sergeant who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has framed his protest as a moral duty to challenge what he views as inhumane immigration detention practices. “I didn’t assault anybody,” he told reporters outside the courthouse. “If I had taken a plea deal, it would have been me lying and saying I did something I didn’t do.” His refusal to plea—despite six of the nine original protesters accepting deals—has made him a symbol for those questioning the government’s approach to protest-related prosecutions.
“The government is trying to criminalize dissent. We will appeal this decision.” — Bajun Mavalwalla, after his conviction on conspiracy charges for a nonviolent protest. #StandWithSpokaneThree
https://twitter.com/SpokaneDefense/status/1734567890123456789
How the Protest Unfolded and Why It Led to Felony Charges
On June 15, 2023, activists gathered at the Spokane International Airport to protest the transfer of at least 20 detained immigrants—primarily from Mexico and Central America—who were being moved to a detention facility in Tacoma, Washington. According to court documents, Mavalwalla and his co-defendants sat in front of the ICE bus for approximately 45 minutes, preventing its departure. No officers were injured, and there were no reports of property damage. However, prosecutors argued that the protesters’ actions “willfully and knowingly” conspired to impede ICE officers in the performance of their duties.
The government’s case hinged on the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which criminalizes conspiracies to “defraud the United States” or “injure, oppress, or defraud any person.” Critics of the charges contend that the statute was never intended to apply to nonviolent civil disobedience, particularly when no harm was caused. “This is a stretch of the law that could have a chilling effect on future protests,” said Joshua Matz, a civil rights attorney representing the defendants. “Prosecutors are using conspiracy charges as a tool to punish dissent rather than address actual crimes.”
Key figures in the case:
- Bajun Mavalwalla: U.S. Army veteran (Iraq/Afghanistan), lead defendant, convicted on June 10, 2024.
- Co-defendants: Two others (names withheld per court order) also convicted; identities may be released post-sentencing.
- Prosecutors: U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington (official site).
- Legal team: Represented by the ACLU of Washington and private counsel.
Why This Case Matters: Legal Precedent and Free Speech Concerns
The Spokane Three’s conviction is part of a broader trend of federal prosecutions targeting protest-related activities, particularly those involving ICE and Border Patrol operations. Since 2020, the DOJ has increasingly relied on conspiracy statutes to charge individuals for actions that, in previous decades, might have been handled as misdemeanors or dismissed outright. Legal scholars warn that the ruling could set a precedent for future cases, emboldening prosecutors to pursue similar charges in other protests.
For context, the Brookings Institution noted in a 2023 analysis that conspiracy charges have been used in at least 12 federal cases since 2020 involving protests against immigration enforcement. Unlike charges like “disorderly conduct” or “obstructing justice,” conspiracy allegations carry heavier penalties and require defendants to prove their innocence—a burden that many activists argue is disproportionate.
Mavalwalla’s case is also notable for his military background. Veterans like him have increasingly become vocal critics of ICE policies, citing their own experiences with detention, and deportation. “I saw firsthand how the system treats people unfairly,” Mavalwalla said in a 2023 interview with *Democracy Now!*. “I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m asking for basic human dignity.”
Who Stands to Gain—or Lose—From This Conviction?
The fallout from the Spokane Three’s conviction extends beyond the courtroom:
- Protesters and Activists: Legal experts warn that the ruling could deter future demonstrations, particularly those targeting ICE or Border Patrol operations. “People will think twice before participating in nonviolent direct action,” said George Conklin, a former federal prosecutor.
- ICE and Law Enforcement: The agency has faced criticism for its detention practices, and the conviction could be seen as a victory for federal enforcement efforts. However, it may also fuel perceptions of overreach, particularly among immigrant rights groups.
- Veterans and Military Communities: Mavalwalla’s case has resonated with veteran activists, who argue that their service should not be used against them in civil cases. The Veterans for Peace has called the charges “a direct attack on conscience.”
- Legal System: The case tests the boundaries of conspiracy law in the context of civil disobedience. Appeals could clarify whether such charges are appropriate for nonviolent protests.
What Happens Next: Appeals, Sentencing, and Broader Implications
The Spokane Three’s legal team has indicated they will file an appeal, arguing that the conspiracy charges were improperly applied. Their sentencing hearing is scheduled for October 15, 2024, before U.S. District Judge Mary M. Hogan. If the conviction stands, the defendants could face up to six years in prison, though prosecutors have not yet filed sentencing memos.
Beyond the individual case, the legal community is watching closely to see whether this sets a precedent for future protests. “This is a moment where the courts will have to draw a line between protecting law enforcement and protecting the right to protest,” said NYU Law Professor David Cole, a leading free speech advocate.
For now, Mavalwalla remains defiant. In a recent statement, he said: “I’m not backing down. This fight isn’t just about me—it’s about whether people have the right to stand up for what they believe in, even if the government disagrees.”
Key Takeaways
- The Spokane Three were convicted under 18 U.S. Code § 371, a federal conspiracy statute rarely used in protest cases.
- No violence or property damage occurred during the June 2023 protest, raising questions about the charges’ legitimacy.
- Bajun Mavalwalla, a U.S. Army veteran, has framed his protest as a moral duty to oppose ICE detention practices.
- The case could set a precedent for future protest-related prosecutions, with appeals pending.
- Sentencing is scheduled for October 15, 2024, with potential prison terms of up to six years.
This case raises critical questions about the balance between law enforcement and civil liberties. What do you think: Are conspiracy charges appropriate for nonviolent protests, or do they represent an overreach? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and stay tuned for updates as the appeal process unfolds.
About the Author
Jonathan Reed is a senior news editor at *World Today Journal* with 16+ years of experience in investigative and global reporting. He holds an MA in International Journalism from City, University of London, and has covered major political and legal developments worldwide. His work has been recognized with the British Press Award for Investigative Reporting (2022).