Inciting a Riot- Constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Shamar Betts

Case No.: 21-2572

Officials: Wood, Hamilton, and Jackson-Akiwumi, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Inciting a Riot- Constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act

Betts faced indictment for inciting a riot under the Anti-Riot Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2101, following his posting of a flyer on Facebook calling for a riot at a Champaign, Illinois mall. The ensuing riot caused damage to multiple businesses. Betts sought to dismiss the indictment, contending that the Anti-Riot Act was overly broad and violated the First Amendment. However, the district court rejected his motion. Betts subsequently entered a guilty plea and received a 48-month prison sentence. Additionally, he was ordered to pay $1,686,170.30 in restitution to 35 businesses under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.

On appeal, Betts challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act, the application of a sentencing guideline by analogy, and the restitution order issued by the district court. The Seventh Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act, citing precedent from United States v. Dellinger. It also affirmed the district court’s application of a sentencing guideline by analogy to the Act.

However, the appeals court agreed with Betts that the government had not adequately demonstrated his direct and proximate responsibility for damages to all businesses listed in the restitution order. Consequently, the court vacated the sentence concerning the amount of restitution and remanded the case solely for the purpose of reassessing the restitution amount.

Vacated and remanded.

Decided 04/29/24

Full Text