Eight individuals, including a former U.S. Marine reservist, were sentenced to decades in prison Tuesday for a shooting last year that wounded a police officer during a demonstration at a Texas immigration detention center. Separately, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Tuesday in an immigration case, expanding the government’s power over green card holders accused of crimes.
Benjamin Song, the Marine reservist convicted of opening fire during the July 4 demonstration outside the Prairieland Detention Center near Dallas, received the maximum punishment of 100 years in prison. 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 were convicted on terrorism charges.
Prosecutors called the crime an act of terrorism and stated the eight were linked to the leftist militant group antifa. The defendants’ attorneys denied any antifa ties, arguing the gathering was planned as a late-night demonstration with fireworks to show support for immigrants being held at Prairieland. Phillip Hayes, Song’s attorney, rejected characterizations that the protesters were extremists, stating his client would appeal the 100-year sentence. Hayes said the group were "kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard," adding, "It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired."
Prosecutor Frank Gatto urged the judge to impose stiff penalties, stating, "People with that kind of extremist beliefs need extra time in prison. They believe violence is justified."
The State's Repression
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, one of two judges overseeing the proceedings, declared what happened was not a protest but "an assault on democracy," emphasizing "the need to deter this type of conduct is high." 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 described as an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated, "The sentences handed down today make clear that Antifa terrorists who attack law enforcement and federal facilities will face swift and uncompromising justice." Prosecutors told jurors that the group’s actions—including bringing firearms, first aid kits, and wearing body armor—were signals of nefarious intent. Defense attorneys maintained there was no planned ambush and that protesters who brought firearms only did so for their own protection. Prosecutors said Song had yelled, “get to the rifles” and opened fire, striking a police officer who had just pulled up to the center.
Defendants and their family members pleaded for leniency. Autumn Hill, who received a 50-year sentence, 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." Her attorney, Cody Cofer, told the judge there was no evidence she had a gun, nor that she believed in violence to achieve change. Chris Tolbert, defendant Savanna Batten’s attorney, stated his client, who also received a 50-year sentence, did not bring a firearm, spray paint, or fireworks to the center, nor did she participate in the planning of the demonstration. 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, convicted only on charges of concealing documents and sentenced to 30 years, just moved a box of his own belongings of artwork, poetry, journals, and zines after the shooting, none of which were illegal, Weinbel said. Other defendants previously pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.
Expanding State Power Over Labor
In the separate immigration case, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision centered on an immigration officers’ 2012 decision to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole 14 years ago 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. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion that "Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude." 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 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. These rulings collectively reinforce the state's capacity to control and discipline a vulnerable segment of the working class.