99 F.4th 1048
7th Cir.2024Background
- During national protests after George Floyd's murder, Shamar Betts posted a Facebook flyer urging people to "RIOT" at a mall in Champaign, Illinois, and to bring objects like bricks.
- The next day, a riot occurred at the targeted mall, resulting in substantial property damage and looting; Betts participated and livestreamed the events.
- Betts was indicted and pled guilty to violating the federal Anti-Riot Act (18 U.S.C. § 2101); he moved to dismiss the indictment as overbroad under the First Amendment, but was denied.
- The district court sentenced Betts to 48 months in prison and ordered over $1.6 million in restitution to 35 local businesses under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA).
- Betts appealed, arguing: the Anti-Riot Act is facially unconstitutional, the sentencing court erred in applying analogous property guidelines, and that most of the restitution was unjustified or not properly linked to his actions.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, but vacated and remanded the restitution amount for further consideration of proper causation and scope.
Issues
| Issue | Betts's Argument | US Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Anti-Riot Act unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment? | The Act criminalizes protected advocacy, failing Brandenburg's imminence test and punishing mere advocacy. | The Act has been upheld under a narrow construction and Betts' own conduct falls within its unprotected scope. | Act is not unconstitutionally overbroad as applied; Seventh Circuit precedent (Dellinger) controls. |
| Did the district court err by applying an analogous property offense guideline for sentencing? | No guideline directly applies; court should avoid using an analogous one. | Courts may use analogous guidelines per existing law and analogous property damage applies. | Allowed: Elements-based approach used to select analogous property guideline is proper. |
| Does the MVRA apply to Anti-Riot Act convictions? | MVRA applies only under "categorical approach" to enumerated offenses, not to fact-based findings. | MVRA covers "offenses against property" based on facts; courts should look to how the offense was committed. | MVRA applies: Fact-specific, not categorical, approach appropriate for determining “offense against property.” |
| Did the district court err in ordering restitution to all businesses claimed as victims? | Government failed to prove direct and proximate causation for all businesses, especially those far from the riot. | All riot-related property damages in time/place/area stemmed from Betts’ incitement. | Partially: Remanded for district court to reconsider restitution—only businesses within foreseeable scope and with documented losses are eligible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972) (upheld constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (standard for overbreadth doctrine)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (First Amendment protects advocacy except incitement of imminent lawless action)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (overbreadth doctrine should be used sparingly)
- United States v. Hansen, 143 S. Ct. 1932 (2023) (standard for facial overbreadth challenge)
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990) (MVRA limits restitution to direct victims)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (use of "elements" language triggers categorical approach)
- Robers v. United States, 572 U.S. 639 (2014) (proximate cause in restitution context)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (use of "committed" language in statutes suggests a conduct-based test)