§ Free Speech & Sedition
First AmendmentSeditionSurveillanceKnow your rightsLawLibrary

Sedition & seditious conspiracy

"Sedition" is conduct or speech inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. The United States has a long, cautionary history of sedition laws used to punish dissent — and a modern statute, seditious conspiracy, that punishes an agreement to use FORCE against the government. The crucial line for a citizen to understand is the one between protected advocacy/dissent (even radical, even revolutionary in the abstract) and a criminal conspiracy to use force. Advocacy is speech; conspiracy is an agreement to act. This is the exact distinction sovereign-citizen and revolutionary rhetoric collapses.

Protected dissent vs. criminal conspiracy — the line the law actually draws

Protected advocacy / dissent
Criticizing, even hating, the government; calling for revolution or the overthrow of the system in the abstract; teaching that violence may one day be morally justified; organizing, protesting, publishing, and associating. Under Brandenburg and Yates this is protected unless it crosses into inciting imminent lawless action.
Criminal conspiracy (force)
AGREEING with others to use FORCE to overthrow the government, levy war against it, oppose its authority by force, or by force to prevent the execution of its laws (18 U.S.C. § 2384). The crime is the agreement to use force, plus (as charged) overt acts toward it — not the opinion, however extreme.

See the sovereign-citizen / pseudolaw teaching on the Law surface (/rights) for how movements misread this line — treating a legal theory or a declaration as a shield, or treating protected advocacy as if it were already a crime. See the Law surface →

The sedition statutes, in order

Alien and Sedition Acts
1798

Four Federalist-era laws signed by President John Adams. The Sedition Act made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. Used to prosecute Jeffersonian newspaper editors and even a congressman; it expired in 1801 and is universally remembered as a violation of the free-press principle, never tested by the modern Supreme Court but repudiated in the "court of history" (as New York Times v. Sullivan later put it).

Status: Sedition Act expired 1801; Alien Enemies Act portion survives (50 U.S.C. § 21).
Espionage Act of 1917
1917

A WWI statute criminalizing interference with military operations, recruitment, and the draft, and the transmission of national-defense information. It was the vehicle for Schenck, Debs, and Abrams. Much of it remains in force today and is the modern basis for leak/espionage prosecutions.

Status: In force (much of it), codified in Title 18, ch. 37.
Sedition Act of 1918
1918

An amendment to the Espionage Act that vastly expanded it — making it a crime to utter or publish "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the U.S. government, flag, or armed forces. It was the high-water mark of American speech suppression. Repealed on December 13, 1920; the underlying Espionage Act was left intact.

Status: Repealed 1920.
Smith Act (Alien Registration Act of 1940)
1940

The first peacetime federal sedition law since 1798. Title I made it a crime to knowingly advocate, or organize a group that advocates, the overthrow of any U.S. government by force or violence, or to publish material so advocating. About 215 people were indicted, mostly alleged Communists and Socialists. Its scope was upheld in Dennis (1951) and then sharply narrowed in Yates (1957); it is still on the books but effectively dormant.

Status: In force (18 U.S.C. § 2385) but narrowed by Yates/Brandenburg; not used in decades.
Seditious conspiracy
1861
"If two or more persons ... conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States ... or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States ... they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

The modern seditious-conspiracy statute (roots in an 1861 Civil War-era law). It punishes two or more persons who conspire to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force" the U.S. government, "to levy war against them," "to oppose by force the authority thereof," or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any U.S. law. The penalty was raised to "imprisoned not more than twenty years" (from six) by a 1956 amendment. The crime is the agreement to use FORCE — not the holding or voicing of any opinion.

Status: In force; carries up to 20 years.

Seditious conspiracy today: the January 6 prosecutions

Seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 2384 is rarely charged. Before 2022 the last conviction was in 1995 (against Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and others in the plot to bomb New York City landmarks). The January 6, 2021 Capitol attack produced the most prominent modern use of the statute, and it illustrates the advocacy-vs-force line precisely: defendants were convicted not for their political beliefs or speech, but for an agreement to use force to oppose the authority of the government and prevent the execution of the law (the certification of the electoral count).

Oath Keepers
Founder Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs were convicted of seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) in November 2022 for their roles in the January 6 Capitol attack — the first § 2384 conviction since 1995. In May 2023, Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison and Meggs to 12 years.
Proud Boys
In May 2023 a federal jury convicted former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio and three co-defendants of seditious conspiracy for a plot to oppose by force the transfer of presidential power. In September 2023, Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years — the longest sentence handed down for a January 6-related offense (Judge Timothy Kelly, D.D.C.).
The line, not the politics: The lesson is the line, not the politics: none of these convictions turned on holding a political opinion, criticizing the government, or even calling for revolution. They turned on an alleged agreement to use FORCE to prevent the government from executing the law. A protester, a pamphleteer, a revolutionary theorist, and an angry citizen are on the protected side of that line; people who agree to storm a building by force to stop a legal process are on the criminal side of it.

The "right of revolution": political tradition, not a legal defense

American founding texts and many state constitutions carry a deep political-theory tradition: that all political power is inherent in the people, and that a people may alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of their rights. This is a statement of political philosophy and popular sovereignty — addressed to "the People" collectively in the founding sense — NOT a legal defense that an individual or group may raise to a criminal charge. No court recognizes a "right of revolution" as a justification for seditious conspiracy, levying war, or violence against the government; seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 2384 remains a live crime with convictions as recent as the January 6 prosecutions. The tradition and the statute occupy different registers: one concerns the legitimacy of governments in political theory, the other what an individual may lawfully do.

Declaration of Independence (1776)

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." A foundational statement of popular sovereignty and of a people's right to change their government. It is a political-philosophy charter of the founding era — not operative law that confers a defense to prosecution.

Texas Constitution, art. I, § 2 (Inherent Political Power)

"All political power is inherent in the people... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient" — subject only to preserving a republican form of government. A representative example of the state constitutional "alter or abolish" clauses. Like the Declaration, it states a principle of popular sovereignty exercised by the people collectively through lawful means; it is not a license for an individual to use force, and it is not a defense to a § 2384 charge.

The line: Political theory says a people may remake their government; criminal law says a person may not agree with others to use force against it. The first is protected thought and speech; the second is the seditious-conspiracy statute. Treating the "right of revolution" as a personal legal shield is the same category error the sovereign-citizen material warns about.

Act on this

Somewhere to act on what you just read — start with our own tools:

Legal information, not legal advice.