A former U.S. Marine reservist received a century-long prison sentence Tuesday for opening fire at a demonstration outside a Texas immigration detention center, wounding a police officer, while the Supreme Court separately handed the Trump administration a significant victory that expands federal power to revoke green cards based on criminal accusations alone—even before conviction.
Benjamin Song, convicted of opening fire during the July 4 demonstration outside the Prairieland Detention Center near Dallas, was sentenced to 100 years in prison, the maximum punishment. The seven others sentenced in Fort Worth courtrooms received prison terms ranging from 30 to 70 years. All but one of the eight defendants sentenced Tuesday were convicted on terrorism charges.
Harsh Sentences Draw Family Outcry
Defense attorneys denied any ties to the leftist militant group antifa, which prosecutors claimed motivated the violence. Family members expressed shock and anger over the stiff sentences. "This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard," said Phillip Hayes, Song's attorney. "It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired."
Attorneys for the defendants said there was no planned ambush and that protesters who brought firearms only did so for their own protection. They argued the gathering was planned as a late-night demonstration with fireworks to show support for immigrants being held at Prairieland before gunshots broke out. Autumn Hill said the gathering "seemed more like a party to me than anything else" and that she and others who participated "didn't expect or want any violence or destruction of property to occur."
Yet Hill received a 50-year sentence despite her attorney, Cody Cofer, telling the judge that there was no evidence she had a gun, nor that she believed in violence to achieve change. He said that after fireworks were set off, she was so conscientious that she made sure to pick up the trash left behind before leaving. Savanna Batten also received 50 years, though her attorney Chris Tolbert said his client didn't bring a firearm, spray paint or fireworks to the center, nor did she participate in the planning of the demonstration.
Daniel Sanchez Estrada, who was not at Prairieland the night of the shooting or involved in the planning, was sentenced to 30 years in prison. His attorney Christopher Weinbel said his client was convicted only on charges of concealing documents after he moved a box of his own belongings of artwork, poetry, journals and zines after the shooting. Nothing in the box was illegal, Weinbel said.
Terrorism Designation Without Legal Framework
The Justice Department called it the first sentencing of "defendants affiliated with" antifa after President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating it as a domestic terrorist organization. Trump issued the order even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department's list of foreign terror organizations. Antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.
U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, one of two judges overseeing the proceedings, said what happened wasn't a protest but "an assault on democracy." "The need to deter this type of conduct is high," O'Connor said. Prosecutor Frank Gatto urged the judge to impose stiff penalties. "People with that kind of extremist beliefs need extra time in prison," Gatto said. "They believe violence is justified."
Supreme Court Expands Deportation Authority
In the separate immigration case, the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision centered on an immigration officers' decision 14 years ago to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime. Lau argued that the officer overstepped their authority, and the decision wrongly allowed the Department of Homeland Security under then-President Barack Obama an easier path to removal after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey.
The high court disagreed. "Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that the decision to put Lau on immigration parole effectively sentenced him to "immigration limbo" before he'd been convicted of any crime. "I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check," she wrote in the dissent joined by her two liberal colleagues.
The liberal group Alliance for Justice said the ruling could provide an expanded path for revoking green cards. The decision comes as the high court considers a series of immigration-related issues against the backdrop of President Donald Trump's sweeping immigration crackdown, though this case started before Trump took office. His administration argued that suspicion of a crime is enough to put a lawful permanent resident, also known as a green-card holder, on immigration parole. Federal attorneys urged the court to take an expansive view of executive authority over immigration. The court is also considering cases over Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, potentially revive a restrictive asylum policy and end temporary legal protections for migrants fleeing war and natural disasters in their homelands.
Why This Matters:
These parallel developments reveal how immigration enforcement increasingly operates with expanded executive authority and minimal procedural protections for those caught in its machinery. The Supreme Court's decision allows immigration officers to place green card holders—lawful permanent residents who have built lives, families, and careers in the United States—into deportation proceedings based on criminal accusations alone, before any conviction. Justice Jackson's warning about a "massive blank check" underscores concerns that legal residents now face removal without the evidentiary standards that protect other Americans. Meanwhile, the lengthy sentences handed down in Texas, including 30 years for a defendant who wasn't present at the shooting and whose only conviction involved moving his own artwork and journals, raise questions about proportionality in an era where executive orders can designate loosely defined groups as terrorist organizations without the legal framework that governs foreign terror designations. Together, these cases illustrate how immigration policy touches fundamental questions of due process, the balance between security and civil liberties, and who receives protection under the law.