Eight Alleged Antifa Members Draw Up to 100 Years for Texas ICE Protest Shooting
Updated
Updated · The Washington Post · Jun 23
Eight Alleged Antifa Members Draw Up to 100 Years for Texas ICE Protest Shooting
3 articles · Updated · The Washington Post · Jun 23
Summary
Benjamin Song received 100 years and seven others 30 to 70 years after federal judges sentenced them for a July 4 protest outside the Prairieland Detention Center that turned violent.
Prosecutors said the group arrived armed, in black bloc clothing, vandalized the ICE facility and set off fireworks before Song shot Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross with an AR-15-style rifle.
Only Song was convicted of attempted murder; the others were sentenced on charges including rioting, supporting terrorists, explosives conspiracy and concealing documents. Ines Soto is still due to be sentenced July 1.
Defense lawyers said the case was politically motivated, argued the evidence showed plans for a peaceful protest, and said they will appeal the convictions.
The sentencings bolster the Trump administration's broader crackdown after Trump labeled antifa a domestic terrorist organization, with the Justice Department already charging 15 more alleged antifa members in Minneapolis last week.
How is the justice system redefining the line between dissent and domestic terrorism for American activists?
When do encrypted messages and book club readings legally constitute material support for terrorism?
Prairieland Protest Ruling 2026: Severe Sentences for "Antifa" Activists Ignite Free Speech Debate
Overview
On June 23, 2026, the court delivered verdicts and sentences in the Prairieland protest case, marking a turning point for protest-related offenses. Prosecutors claimed the defendants, linked by a book club, carried out a premeditated terror attack on a detention facility by setting off fireworks, vandalizing property, and shooting at police officers. They argued these actions were inspired by antifa ideology and used the group’s zines as evidence of a broader conspiracy. The severe outcome, framed as a terror attack, has sparked intense debate among legal experts and civil liberties advocates about the future of protest rights and state power.