18 F.4th 1275
11th Cir.2021Background
- Seven Plowshares members, including Clare Grady, Martha Hennessy, and Carmen Trotta, cut perimeter fencing and unlawfully entered Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay (April 4, 2018) to perform "symbolic disarmament." Inside the base they spray‑painted messages, poured human blood on doors/sidewalks, hammered a missile display, removed/damaged monuments and signage, and cut into a "Limited Area."
- Base security detained the group; the government charged the seven with conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), destruction of property on a naval installation (§ 1363), depredation of government property (§ 1361), and trespass (§ 1382). Grady, Hennessy, and Trotta were tried, convicted, and sentenced below Guidelines (12, 10, and 14 months respectively) with $33,503.51 restitution, joint and several.
- The appellants moved to dismiss under RFRA, arguing prosecution substantially burdened sincerely held religious exercise and that less‑restrictive alternatives (designated area, civil remedies, reduced charges) were available; the district court held RFRA prima facie satisfied but denied dismissal, finding the government met its compelling‑interest and least‑restrictive‑means burden.
- Additional challenges on appeal: (1) RFRA dismissal denial; (2) joint and several restitution; (3) denial of acceptance‑of‑responsibility reductions (U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1) for Hennessy and Trotta; (4) Hennessy’s Guidelines loss attribution; (5) Grady’s requested mistake‑of‑fact jury instruction; (6) Grady’s contention that RFRA should have been considered at sentencing.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on all issues: RFRA did not require an exemption for the defendants’ destructive, security‑compromising conduct; restitution liability and Guidelines applications were proper; acceptance reductions were correctly denied; mistake‑of‑fact instruction was not warranted; and no plain‑error basis existed for RFRA sentencing relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA dismissal of indictment | Grady/Hennessy/Trotta: criminal prosecution substantially burdens sincere religious exercise; permitting symbolic disarmament in a designated area is a less‑restrictive means, so indictment must be dismissed. | Govt: protecting base safety, security, and operations is a compelling interest and prosecution is the least‑restrictive means given defendants’ destructive, security‑compromising acts. | Affirmed: RFRA does not require an exemption for destructive unauthorized entry; proposed alternatives would not achieve all compelling interests. |
| Joint & several restitution ($33,503.51) | Grady/Hennessy/Trotta: court should apportion restitution to each defendant based on individual causation. | Govt: losses arose from the conspiracy; court may hold co‑conspirators jointly and severally liable under § 3664(h). | Affirmed: district court within discretion to impose joint and several restitution for conspiracy losses. |
| Acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction (§ 3E1.1) | Hennessy/Trotta: they did not deny conduct and went to trial only to assert RFRA, so they should get the reduction. | Govt: by denying illegality and putting the government to its proof at trial, defendants did not clearly accept responsibility. | Affirmed: denial not clearly erroneous; defendants’ conduct and trial posture precluded the reduction; any error harmless. |
| Guidelines loss attribution for enhancement (Hennessy) | Hennessy: only her direct damage should be attributed; co‑defendants’ acts were not reasonably foreseeable; government failed to prove loss at sentencing. | Govt: Hennessy planned and participated in the conspiracy and tools/plan made co‑conspirators’ destructive acts reasonably foreseeable; district court may estimate loss. | Affirmed: court properly attributed total loss as relevant conduct; enhancement supported by trial evidence and foreseeability. |
| Mistake‑of‑fact jury instruction (Grady) | Grady: she honestly believed her actions were lawful (religious duty); honest mistake negates willfulness. | Govt: statutes require only consciousness of conduct (willful = deliberate act), not knowledge of illegality; mistake of law/ultimate rightness is irrelevant. | Affirmed: instruction not warranted; honest belief about law/rightness does not negate willfulness for § 1361/1363. |
| Consideration of RFRA at sentencing (Grady) | Grady: RFRA should factor into § 3553(a) mitigation analysis; district court failed to address it. | Govt: no controlling precedent requires RFRA consideration at sentencing; Grady did not object at sentencing. | Affirmed: no plain‑error—no precedent mandates RFRA be considered at sentencing here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RFRA/RLUIPA least‑restrictive‑means standard is demanding)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA requires addressing the particular religious practice at issue)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (broad definition of "religious exercise")
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (Free Exercise exemption analysis for particular religious practices)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (a mistaken understanding of law generally does not excuse criminal liability)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- United States v. Loyd, 743 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir. 1984) (co‑conspirator liability for acts in furtherance of conspiracy)
- United States v. Obasohan, 73 F.3d 309 (11th Cir. 1996) (restitution may be joint and several for conspiracy losses)
- United States v. Christie, 825 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016) (RFRA may be raised as a defense in criminal proceedings)
- United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011) (district court entitled to reasonable loss estimates at sentencing)