Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

United States v. Smith

Geography
Year
2023
Document Type
Litigation
Part of

About this case

Filing year
2023
Status
Convictions affirmed, challenge to restitution orders dismissed, sentence vacated, and case remanded for resentencing.
Docket number
25-1516, 25-1517
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (8th Cir.)
Case category
Climate Change Protesters and Scientists (US) → Protesters (US)
Principal law
United States → 18 U.S.C. § 1366 (Destruction of an energy facility)United States → Federal Criminal Law
At issue
Document with title of United States v. Smith
Topics
, ,  

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
08/31/2026
Convictions affirmed, challenge to restitution orders dismissed, sentence vacated, and case remanded for resentencing.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of an individual who pleaded guilty to two counts of destruction of an energy facility but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding that there was procedural error in determining the advisory sentencing guideline range. The defendant’s guilty plea followed incidents when shots were fired into electrical substations in North Dakota and South Dakota in 2023 and 2022; the district court sentenced him to 150 months’ imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively. The Eighth Circuit ruled that the district court properly rejected a motion to suppress evidence and found that the defendant did not establish a breach of the plea agreement. The Eighth Circuit concluded, however, that the evidence did not support the district court’s finding that the defendant acted with “a terrorist motive … to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” which resulted in the upward departure in the advisory sentencing guideline range. The Eighth Circuit wrote that “[e]fforts to intimidate or coerce an energy company may ultimately affect a civilian population, but they are not the same as efforts to intimidate or coerce the civilian population itself.” The Eighth Circuit also noted that the government had suggested that the defendant “hoped for others to ‘rise up’ and join his climate activism,” but the Eighth Circuit concluded that “a motive to recruit followers is not a motive to intimidate or coerce.” The Eighth Circuit noted that there was no threat to commit violence against a civilian population and that it was “undisputed” that the defendant targeted substations “in remote, unpopulated areas during the middle of the night when there were no people around.” The court found that it would “stretch” the language “beyond its natural meaning to accept on this record that [the defendant’s] motive was ‘to intimidate or coerce a civilian population’” and therefore concluded there was error in calculating the advisory guideline range.
Decision
–

Summary

Prosecution of individual in connection with incidents when shots were fired into electrical substations in North Dakota and South Dakota in 2023 and 2022.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Fossil fuel
Economic sector