A federal jury in Washington state convicted three protesters of conspiracy charges for attempting to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from transporting two detained illegal immigrants out of Spokane last June. Jac Archer, Justice Forral, and Bajun Mavalwalla II each face up to six years in prison and $250,000 in fines after the verdict came down Thursday following a nearly two-week trial.
The convictions mark the end of a case that began when hundreds of people descended on an ICE facility near downtown Spokane after former City Council President Ben Stuckart posted a call to action on Facebook urging people to help him block a transfer bus. The two detained illegal immigrants were being moved from Spokane to Tacoma. Nine protesters were arrested on federal conspiracy charges. Six, including Stuckart himself, took guilty pleas in exchange for reduced sentences. The remaining three went to trial.
They lost.
The case carries a bitter irony that even the defendants’ allies couldn’t ignore. Stuckart, the man who lit the match by rallying hundreds to the ICE facility, never showed up at trial. He claimed he was told his attendance could violate the terms of his parole, though the basis for that concern remains unexplained in public statements. He took his plea deal and stayed away while Archer, Forral, and Mavalwalla faced a jury.
Washington State Representative Natasha Hill, a Democrat from Spokane, did not mince words about Stuckart’s absence. As Breitbart reported, Hill directed her frustration squarely at the former council president:
“You started this and you couldn’t even show up to finish it. So I call on you, and I call on others to do what you said you were going to do, and stand up for your community because the fight is not over with this conviction.”
That’s a Democratic state legislator publicly rebuking the man who organized the protest. When even your political allies are calling you out for leaving others to face the consequences of your actions, the moral authority of the cause starts to crumble fast.
Stuckart posted a reaction on Facebook after the verdict. He wrote that he felt “awful about the guilty verdict” and “awful for Jac, Bajun and Justice and their families,” adding that he supported both those who took plea deals and those who went to trial. Support from a distance, apparently.
Just The News reported that the specific charge was conspiracy to impede or injure federal agents, with the conviction formally entered on May 29, 2026. The case stemmed from the June 2025 protests at the Spokane ICE facility. If the verdicts stand, each defendant could face six years behind bars at a future sentencing date.
Forral reportedly faces additional state charges and has another trial scheduled for August 10. The six defendants who pleaded guilty may receive reduced charges as part of their agreements, though specific sentence lengths and sentencing dates have not been made public.
Federal prosecutors have not been shy about treating this case seriously. The conspiracy charges, the trial, and the convictions send a clear message: obstructing federal law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties is a crime, not a protest tactic. The federal government has shown increasing willingness to bring conspiracy charges in cases where coordinated action crosses legal lines.
Bajun Mavalwalla, Sr., father of convicted defendant Bajun Mavalwalla II and himself a congressional candidate, characterized the prosecution as “political and vindictive.” He argued that the case threatens fundamental rights.
Fox News reported his fuller statement, in which the elder Mavalwalla said:
“The right to protest, the right to dissent, the right to assemble, all of those things are now in question because of this case.”
That framing deserves scrutiny. Nobody was charged for holding signs, chanting slogans, or assembling peacefully. The charges were for conspiracy to impede federal officers carrying out a lawful transfer of detained individuals. There is a long-established legal distinction between exercising First Amendment rights and physically obstructing law enforcement. A jury of their peers heard the evidence over nearly two weeks and found that the defendants crossed that line.
Defense attorneys said they expect to appeal the convictions. That is their right, and the appellate process will test whether the trial was conducted fairly. But the verdict itself reflects a jury’s conclusion, not a political directive from Washington.
The Spokane case fits into a larger pattern of organized resistance to immigration enforcement that has played out across the country. In city after city, activists have attempted to physically interfere with ICE operations, blocking transport vehicles, surrounding facilities, and in some cases coordinating through social media to mobilize crowds on short notice.
Stuckart’s Facebook post did exactly that. He urged people to join him in blocking the transfer bus. Hundreds responded. The result was not a peaceful demonstration but an attempt to prevent federal officers from doing their jobs. Federal courts have consistently held that conspiracy charges apply when individuals coordinate to obstruct federal operations, regardless of the political motivations behind the coordination.
Stuckart was serving as a sponsor for one of the two detained illegal immigrants who were seeking asylum. That personal connection may explain his urgency. It does not excuse organizing a mob to block a federal transport.
The case also raises questions about accountability within activist movements. Nine people were arrested. The organizer cut a deal. Three others who followed his lead now face years in prison. That dynamic, where the person who rallied the crowd walks away with a lighter sentence while foot soldiers bear the heaviest consequences, is worth examining honestly.
Federal prosecutors have shown they will pursue serious conspiracy cases to their conclusion, whether the underlying conduct involves financial fraud or obstruction of law enforcement. The Spokane convictions fit that pattern.
Several questions hang over the case as it moves toward sentencing and likely appeal. The specific actions the protesters took to block the transfer, whether they physically obstructed vehicles, formed human chains, or used other tactics, have not been detailed in public reporting. The names of the two detained illegal immigrants have not been released.
The sentencing outcomes for the six defendants who pleaded guilty remain unknown. And Stuckart’s claim that attending the trial would have violated his parole has not been publicly explained. What parole conditions would prevent someone from sitting in a courtroom as a spectator?
The appellate process may shed light on some of these questions. For now, the verdict stands: three people organized to stop federal officers from enforcing the law, and a jury held them accountable.
The federal government has made clear in recent years that it will prosecute those who conspire to obstruct its operations, from large-scale fraud schemes to street-level interference with law enforcement. The Spokane case is smaller in scale but identical in principle.
Rep. Hill told supporters the fight isn’t over. Defense attorneys plan to appeal. The elder Mavalwalla frames the case as a threat to civil liberties. Those arguments will play out in courtrooms and on campaign trails.
But the facts of the case are straightforward. A former city official used social media to summon hundreds of people to physically prevent federal officers from transporting detained illegal immigrants. Nine were arrested. Six cut deals. Three went to trial and were convicted by a jury. The organizer who started it all wasn’t in the courtroom.
The right to protest is foundational. The right to obstruct federal law enforcement is not. A jury in Washington state just drew that line, and three people are on the wrong side of it.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.