Description: Santa Ana, California criminal defense lawyers represented the Defendants charged with violating the Anti-Riot Act.


"Now before the Court are two motions to dismiss. In their first motion, Defendants argue the First Superseding Indictment must be dismissed because the Anti-Riot Act is unconstitutionally vague. Constitutional due process requires that criminal statutes give people fair notice of prohibited conduct and provide sufficient standards to limit arbitrary enforcement by the government. But Defendants' challenge to the Anti-Riot Act on vagueness grounds is barred because their conduct is clearly covered by the Anti-Riot Act. Though there may be questions in another case as to what constitutes a violation of the Anti-Riot Act, this is not that case. Defendants clearly used a facility of interstate commerce shortly before they engaged in riotous activity as proscribed by the Anti-Riot Act.

In their second motion, Defendants argue the First Superseding Indictment also must be dismissed because the government selectively prosecuted them for their far-right, white supremacist speech and beliefs. The equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not allow the government to prosecute certain individuals over similarly situated people on unjustifiable bases such as race, religion, or the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Rightly, out of respect for the separation of powers, the bar is high for a court to exercise judicial power over charging decisions, a special province of the executive branch. To meet that bar criminal defendants must submit clear evidence that their prosecution violates equal protection. Defendants have done so here."

Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted. Motion to stay by the Government issued by the 19th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: