A former U.S. Marine reservist received a 100-year prison sentence Tuesday for opening fire on a Texas immigration detention center during a July 4 demonstration that wounded a police officer, marking what the Justice Department called the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with antifa following President Donald Trump's executive order designating it as a domestic terrorist organization.
Benjamin Song and seven others were sentenced in Fort Worth courtrooms to prison terms ranging from 30 to 100 years for the shooting outside the Prairieland Detention Center near Dallas. All but one of the eight defendants were convicted on terrorism charges. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor said what happened wasn't a protest but "an assault on democracy," adding that "the need to deter this type of conduct is high."
Terrorism Prosecution and Government Response
Prosecutors called the crime an act of terrorism and said the eight were linked to the leftist militant group antifa. Trump issued the executive order designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organization last fall, 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.
"The sentences handed down today make clear that Antifa terrorists who attack law enforcement and federal facilities will face swift and uncompromising justice," Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement.
Prosecutors told jurors during the trial that the group's actions—including bringing firearms, first aid kits and wearing body armor—were signals of nefarious intent. 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." Prosecutors have said Song had yelled, "get to the rifles" and opened fire, striking a police officer who had just pulled up to the center.
Defense Arguments and Sentencing Outcomes
The defendants' attorneys denied any antifa ties and family members expressed shock and anger over the stiff sentences. 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.
Phillip Hayes, Song's attorney, rejected characterizations that the protesters were extremists and said his client will appeal the 100-year sentence. "This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard," Hayes said. "It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired."
Defendant 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." Hill's attorney, Cody Cofer, told 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. Hill received a 50-year sentence.
Chris Tolbert, defendant Savanna Batten's attorney, has said that his client didn't bring a firearm, spray paint or fireworks to the center, nor did she participate in the planning of the demonstration. Batten also received a 50-year sentence.
Another protester, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was not at Prairieland the night of the shooting or involved in the planning, his attorney Christopher Weinbel said. Sanchez Estrada, who is married to another of the defendants, was convicted only on charges of concealing documents. Weinbel said his client just moved a box of his own belongings of artwork, poetry, journals and zines after the shooting. Nothing in the box was illegal, Weinbel said. Sanchez Estrada was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Other defendants previously pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.
Supreme Court Backs Executive Authority on Green Cards
In a separate immigration case decided Tuesday, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a 6-3 decision dealing with the government's power over green card holders accused of crimes. The case 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. Advancing American Freedom, a group founded by former Republican Vice President Mike Pence, called it an important case to allow the removal of people who "abuse the privilege of being granted lawful permanent resident status."
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:
The century-long sentences handed down in the Prairieland case represent the federal government's most aggressive prosecution yet of violent extremism targeting law enforcement and immigration facilities. The convictions on terrorism charges establish legal precedent for holding accountable those who use violence against federal officers and property, regardless of their stated political motivations. The Supreme Court's immigration ruling reinforces executive branch authority to protect national borders and maintain control over who enters and remains in the United States, even when individuals hold legal permanent resident status. The decision clarifies that immigration officers can act on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity without meeting the higher evidentiary standard civil libertarians sought to impose. Together, these developments signal judicial support for robust enforcement of immigration law and consequences for those who would obstruct that enforcement through violence.