Scrutinizing Federal Prosecution of Protesters Amid Immigration Tensions

Thu Dec 18 2025 15:54:09 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A look into the aggressive federal prosecutions against demonstrators during immigration protests reveals patterns of dismissed charges and failed indictments, raising concerns over the balance between law enforcement and the right to protest.

The Justice Department's attempts to prosecute individuals accused of assaulting federal officers during protests against immigration policies have led to significant challenges. An analysis shows that many charges have been downgraded or dismissed. Experts express concern that the aggressive nature of these charges aims to suppress dissent, while several cases continue to face scrutiny and trial failures.

In an ongoing effort to uphold federal authority, the Justice Department has embarked on a lengthy initiative to prosecute individuals involved in demonstrations against the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Attorney General Pam Bondi has publicly committed to pursuing severe penalties for those accused of assaulting federal officials. A review conducted by The Associated Press (AP) highlights significant discrepancies in the success of these prosecutions, indicating a broader issue of prosecutorial overreach.

Despite the aggressive stance adopted by federal prosecutors, data from 166 cases across key cities shows a trend of downgraded charges. From the analysis, it was found that around 55% of individuals initially charged with felony assaults had their cases reduced to misdemeanors or entirely dismissed. Instances where the prosecution struggled to secure grand jury indictments reveal the vulnerabilities in the government’s approach to handling protest-related charges.

Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor and director at Georgetown University Law Center, suggests that the government's aggressive charging tactics might serve to stifle legitimate protest against the administration’s policies. 'It’s clear from this data that the government is being extremely aggressive and charging for things that ordinarily wouldn’t be charged at all,' she stated.

The Erosion of Felony Charges

Among the analyzed cases, evidence emerged that cast doubt on the severity of initial allegations. For example, footage of Dana Briggs, an Air Force veteran, led to the dismissal of charges after it showed federal agents tackling him rather than the other way around. Other cases, such as that of Lucy Shepherd, illustrated how video evidence effectively contested the narrative provided by federal prosecutors.

Labeling Protesters

Interestingly, while there has been rampant discussion about 'antifa' within political circles, the AP's review uncovered that such designations were largely absent from the courtroom. Although the administration has linked various protesters with the far-left antifa movement, not a single case proved sufficient to officially label any demonstrators as domestic terrorists.

Failures in Court

Adding to the department’s challenges, the Justice Department faced a surprising setback when it lost all five of its misdemeanor trials. Legal experts have expressed disbelief that such cases, which require considerable resources, would even go to trial without confident prospects for success.

Among those high-profile losses, Sean Charles Dunn was acquitted after throwing a sandwich at a federal agent, an incident shown on social media video that questioned the prosecution’s narrative. Similarly, Katherine Carreño faced acquittal after a protest incident that presented inconsistencies in the prosecution's claims.

The Path Ahead

Currently, over fifty cases remain pending, with several individuals still facing enhanced charges based on their actions during protests. The Department of Homeland Security has reported a total of 238 assaults on its personnel, indicating ongoing tensions during the administration’s enforcement of immigration measures.

The review not only underscores the evolving dynamics between protesters and law enforcement but also prompts deeper reflections about citizens' rights to express dissent in a politically charged environment. While authorities are tasked with maintaining order, the appropriateness of their methods remains a pressing concern.