12 Indicted for Threats Aimed at Forcing University of Michigan to Sever Ties with Israel

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan announced yesterday that a 64-page superseding indictment (full text) has been unsealed, now charging 12 defendants with conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate and foreign commerce, as well as witness tampering. Defendants used vandalism and intimidation against their targets. According to the indictment:

The defendants are a group of individuals associated with the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. After the October 7,2023, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, the defendants and unindicted conspirators orchestrated detailed plans to threaten University of Michigan leaders, law enforcement, and businesses with coordinated criminal acts. Their goal included forcing the University of Michigan and other businesses to sever all perceived ties with the State of Israel.

To accomplish this goal, the defendants and their unindicted conspirators ... used encrypted messages, social media, and overseas collaboration platforms to research, target, and attack their victims. Then, they posted pictures of their attacks on social media, along with additional threats and warnings. Their criminal activity included spray painting threats, breaking windows, and throwing glass jars filled with noxious chemicals into family homes. They marked their victims with threatening symbols used by Hamas, including red inverted triangles and red handprints. They used the internet and social media to broadcast their message to ensure their threats and commitment to continuing criminal activity were heard by their victims and others who support Israel....

From approximately October 2023 through and including April 2025, the defendants and unindicted conspirators targeted individuals and businesses in the Eastern District of Michigan and elsewhere, including: The University of Michigan's President, Chief Investment Officer, Provost, and members of the Board of Regents and their businesses; a University of Michigan police officer; Rolls Royce Solutions America, Inc.; Maersk, Inc.; and the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit....

JNS reports on the indictment.

Civil Conspiracy Claims Against Religious Organization Survive 1st Amendment Defenses

In re Gothard, (TX App., Feb. 22, 2024), is a mandamus action that is essentially an appeal of a trial court's refusal to dismiss civil conspiracy claims against Institute in Basic Life Principles and its founder, William Gothard. Plaintiffs claimed that ILBP is a cult that "teachers distorted and heretical Christian doctrines" that led to their sexual abuse by their father and brother. The Texas state appellate court rejected Relators', i.e. defendants', First Amendment defenses, saying in part:

Gothard maintains that religious teachings and the publication thereof are constitutionally protected.  IBLP contends the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars RPIs’ cause of action. It argues that the “alleged religiously motivated conduct of IBLP is the advocacy and publication of religious beliefs.”  According to Relators, if RPIs’ claim is considered valid, any religious leader who speaks on religious topics and publishes his beliefs could be subject to a civil cause of action if a listener or reader improperly applies those beliefs in sexually abusing another person or committing some other unlawful act. ...

But the First Amendment does not bar all claims against religious bodies.,,,  A court may exercise jurisdiction over a controversy if it can apply neutral principles of law that will not require inquiry into religious doctrine, interference with the free-exercise rights of believers, or meddling in church government....

The relevant question is whether it appears certain that resolution of [plaintiffs']’ claims will require the trial court to address purely ecclesiastical questions.... IBLP represents that its teachings and materials are based on scriptures from the Bible, none of which “advocate sexual abuse or any other form of sexual immorality.”  Accordingly, by its own admission, IBLP’s teachings and materials do not advocate sexual abuse and consequently, the intentional tort of sexual assault that underlies the civil conspiracy claim is not rooted in religious belief.  ....

Because sexual assault is not part of Relators’ belief system, we cannot definitively say, based on the record before us, that this is a situation in which religious beliefs are so intertwined with a tort claim so as to unconstitutionally burden Relators’ rights and embroil the court in an assessment of those religious beliefs.