Statement on the Prairieland Verdict
Muslims for Just Futures is deeply concerned about the impact of the Prairieland case on the right to protest, freedom of speech, assembly, and more broadly, for anyone critical of the government. This verdict raises critical questions about the weaponization of federal “material support for terrorism” statutes not only against those engaged in protest activity, but potentially against anyone whose political views, associations, or criticisms place them at odds with the government.
The implications of the verdict in this case reach far beyond the nine individuals prosecuted - it signals a shift at stifling speech, ideology, and the very marketplace of ideas the First Amendment purports to protect. It also signals the federal government’s willingness to stretch national security and terrorism frameworks into areas of political dissent, protest, criticism, collective action, and forms of direct solidarity with targeted communities. When prosecutors advance theories that blur the line between alleged criminal conduct and constitutionally protected expression, association, or political affiliation, the consequences are a seismic shift to the jurisprudence regarding First Amendment protections. It aims to chill speech, discourage organizing, and cast suspicion on people who challenge state violence, immigration policy, detention practices, policing, or other government conduct.
This prosecution marks the federal government’s first successful use of material support for terrorism charges against individuals alleged to be associated with the loosely defined anti-fascist ideology often described as “antifa,” and serves as an early test of policies outlined in NSPM-7. As such, it may preview a broader strategy in which ideological framing and political identity are used to justify political prosecutions and government overreach. That should concern broader civil society actors from organizers to journalists, legal observers, mutual aid volunteers, movement attorneys, scholars, advocates, and community members who publicly criticize government programs and policies.
“History gives us ample reason to take the concern of governments weaponizing laws to target legitimate movements. From the Red Scare, to COINTELPRO, the Green Scare, to the post-9/11 national security apparatus, the United States has repeatedly used expansive security frameworks to monitor, disrupt, and criminalize communities, political movements, community organizations, and dissenting voices. These policies deliberately spill outward, reaching speech, association, organizing, solidarity work, and opposition to state policy.
We urge civil rights, legal, and pro-democracy groups to clearly address the stakes and implications of such test-cases, the dangers of NSPM-7, and the threat the material support for terrorism apparatus poses to civil society and movements.”
While sentencing is still pending and defense attorneys will most likely appeal, these charges carry the possibility of decades in federal prison time for defendants. EIght of the nine defendants were charged and convicted of providing material support to terrorists, among other charges. This is despite the fact that defense attorneys emphasized the action was intended as a noise demonstration to show solidarity with people detained at the facility, not to carry out violence.
The FBI investigators presented materials such as zines, booklets, pamphlets, posters and other First Amendment protected materials found in several of the defendants’ homes and cars to convince the jury that defendants held anti-government views and supported terrorism. These materials included content on decolonization, anti-fascism, anarchy, the abolition of ICE and police, opposition to Israel, noise demonstrations, direct action and animal rights. Including a political reading group in the case’s narrative heightens concern that political education, political association, political content, material, and ideological expression are being treated as suspicious in themselves.
As the DOJ’s press release noted, this case is a historic win against an “enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribing to an ideology that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and the system of law.” Attorney General Pam Bondi further stated that, “today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.” Statements like this heighten concern that the case is being used to establish a broader political and legal precedent where the federal government identifies a category of dissenters, labels them as a security threat, and then expands the use of terrorism laws against them and others.
History gives us ample reason to take the concern of governments weaponizing laws to target legitimate movements. From the Red Scare, to COINTELPRO, the Green Scare, to the post-9/11 national security apparatus, the United States has repeatedly used expansive security frameworks to monitor, disrupt, and criminalize communities, political movements, community organizations, and dissenting voices. These policies deliberately spill outward, reaching speech, association, organizing, solidarity work, and opposition to state policy.
We urge civil rights, legal, and pro-democracy groups to clearly address the stakes and implications of such test-cases, the dangers of NSPM-7, and the threat the material support for terrorism apparatus poses to civil society and movements.
