Political activists seek landmark free-speech ruling in novel case
The leader of an Atlanta-based radical sect, and other political activists found guilty of secretly conspiring to act as agents of the Russian government, are fighting their prosecutions, hoping to secure a landmark free-speech ruling.
Augustus Romain Jr., who once led a far-left political organization called the Black Hammer Party in Atlanta, was convicted in 2024 alongside Omali Yeshitela, Penny Hess and Jesse Nevel, leaders of the African People’s Socialist Party known as the “Uhuru 3.” They were sentenced to community service and probation.
Federal prosecutors accused the defendants of spreading anti-American propaganda at the bidding of Aleksandr Ionov, a resident of Moscow who founded and led the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia.
The Biden administration targeting the defendants for their protected speech, charging them under a federal law governing the agents of foreign governments, is unconstitutional, their lawyers said. They want the federal appeals court with jurisdiction across Georgia, Florida and Alabama to overturn their convictions in a precedential ruling that protects free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
“When they attack speech, it’s an attack on everybody,” Yeshitela, chairman of the African People’s Socialist Party, told supporters outside the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta after a three-judge panel heard arguments in the case Wednesday.
Romain’s lawyer, Todd Murgo, told the judges the prosecution was unwarranted, because the defendants were “simply disseminating and publishing thoughts and opinions.”
Leonard Goodman, arguing for Yeshitela, Hess and Nevel, said in court it’s the first time the relevant federal law has been used to target political speech, noting that none of the defendants were accused of conspiring to commit espionage or destroy property. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has established in other cases that lawful speech cannot be criminalized, and there’s no evidence the defendants’ actions jeopardized national security.
“This is a novel case,” Goodman told the judges. “The utterances charged here are clearly protected speech.”
Arguing for the defendants’ convictions to be upheld, U.S. Department of Justice attorney Joseph Minta said the case was properly charged because their conduct was “at the direction or control of the Russian government.”
The federal law in question requires agents of foreign governments to register with the DOJ. The defendants failed to do so, case records show.
William Pryor Jr., chief judge of the 11th Circuit, and Judge Andrew Brasher homed in on that point Wednesday, suggesting it doesn’t matter in this kind of case whether the action taken by an unregistered agent of a foreign government is speech-based.
“No one’s saying you can’t disseminate this propaganda, you just have to register if you do it,” Brasher said to Goodman. “The statute criminalizes failure to register as a foreign agent. If the statute criminalized being in support of Russia, you would have an easy case.”
Pryor said the crime the defendants were convicted of seems to be “content neutral.” He said the relevant circumstances of the case appear to mirror a hypothetical scenario he posed Wednesday, in which an individual spoke on behalf of Israel to advocate its attack on Iran.
“It’s hard to understand how you would think the government would prosecute a case where the activity of the foreign agent was speech activity,” Pryor said to Goodman in response to the defendants’ argument. “Are you saying you just always get a free pass if the activity is speech activity? You just can’t be prosecuted for that?”
Goodman said such a prosecution must be reasonable.
“I don’t think the government can credibly argue that this is a content-neutral prosecution,” he told the judges.
After the hearing, Yeshitela told several dozen supporters gathered for a debriefing at Georgia State University College of Law that it would have been wrong for him and the other defendants to register as agents of the Russian government, because that’s not true. He said the chief judge’s hypothetical about Israel was “interesting.”
“The only thing we’re doing is serving the people,” Yeshitela said at the law school. “We cannot succumb to threats or to fear.”
Yeshitela said he felt “pretty good” about the arguments Wednesday, adding it appeared the judges recognized “there are some issues that need resolution.”
The 11th Circuit’s decision is expected in the coming months.