This Comment seeks to answer two questions. First, how did the Justice Department come to believe that it had the authority to prosecute riots so broadly—is the riot law of D.C. unique, or would such a prosecution have been viable under the laws of other American jurisdictions? Second, did the prosecution offend the constitutional rights of the people involved, and if so, how? Although the Justice Department’s tactics received criticism in the media for their unfairness and deleterious effect on free speech, are those criticisms grounded in a principle of constitutional law that would constrain future prosecutors from attempting the same feat?
Group Liability and Riot Acts: Can a Non-Opponent Wield a Heckler’s Veto?
Volume 91, No. 1, Winter 2018