01 Jun WHEN PROTESTS TURN VIOLENT: CAN FEDERAL LAW REACH THE CHAOS AT DELANEY HALL?

June 2026 WHEN PROTESTS TURN VIOLENT: CAN FEDERAL LAW REACH THE CHAOS AT DELANEY HALL?

If the name Delaney Hall doesn’t immediately ring a bell, it should. The privately operated immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, has become a focal point in the national debate over immigration enforcement and detention. And after last week’s violent unrest outside the facility drew widespread attention, chances are you’ve already formed an opinion about what happened there. But beyond the politics lies a more fundamental legal question: when can the federal government step in, and what authority does it have to do so?

Federal authorities in Newark appear to believe the answer is clear. More than 20 people have already been charged with federal crimes arising from protest-related activity at Delaney Hall. But federal power is not unlimited. Even when an incident attracts national attention, prosecutors need a recognized legal basis—or federal nexus—to justify federal involvement.

Many people assume that violent unrest automatically becomes a federal matter. It does not. Under our constitutional system, states retain primary responsibility for enforcing most criminal laws. Federal prosecutors cannot simply intervene whenever violence occurs on city streets. Federal criminal law generally applies only when a distinct federal interest is implicated.

In practice, that means the federal government cannot prosecute conduct simply because it is criminal or newsworthy. Prosecutors must identify a federal nexus, such as federal property, federal officers, interstate commerce, immigration enforcement, federal programs, or civil-rights protections. Without such a connection, even serious offenses—including assault, vandalism, trespass, and rioting—are typically handled by state and local authorities.

Delaney Hall Presents an Unusual Federal Nexus

Unlike a typical protest site that usually involves government property, Delaney Hall is a privately-owned immigration detention facility operated pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Because federal officers, federal detainees and federal immigration operations are involved, prosecutors have a significantly stronger basis for asserting federal jurisdiction than they would at an ordinary local protest. In practice, Delaney Hall’s core, internal immigration and detention operations operate exclusively under federal law.

By contrast, the areas surrounding Delaney Hall – which includes adjacent public spaces and infrastructure—are subject to overlapping state and municipal jurisdiction. Since most of the reported violent and riotous activity has occurred in this area, the basis for federal authority is a gray area driven by fact-specific circumstances.

Potential Federal Criminal Charges

So far, the charges arising from Delaney Hall activities seem to have been primarily reactive to individual incidents, which is not uncommon in protest situations. It remains unclear whether federal authorities are pursuing a broader, more proactive investigation into those who organized or financed the demonstrations. Statements by New Jersey’s governor and attorney general have suggested that the unrest surrounding Delaney Hall is not solely the product of spontaneous local action, but has been influenced by “outside instigators” characterized as members of “national extremist groups.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/delaney-hall-protests-intensify-far-left-activists-ice-supporters-converge-new-jersey.

If that assessment is correct, it invites the need for a more proactive investigation that extends beyond the individuals arrested at the scene and toward the broader network that helped organize, direct, encourage, or finance the unlawful conduct. The critical question is not whether criminal activity occurred, but whether that activity was part of a coordinated effort to disrupt ICE operations and impede federal personnel. If evidence supports such a conclusion, federal authorities may have grounds to pursue a more expansive inquiry aimed at identifying those who planned, facilitated or funded the disorder, regardless of whether they were physically present during the events themselves. Such an investigation takes investigative and prosecutorial will—and federal authorities are best positioned to determine the full extent of any such network. Federal authorities possess nationwide investigative reach, enabling them to trace communications, funding streams and organizational networks across state lines.

Following offenses are among the charges that could be brought under federal law:

1. Assault of Federal Officers (18 U.S.C. § 111)

One of the most frequently charged protest-related crimes is assaulting, resisting, impeding, intimidating or interfering with federal officers engaged in official duties, charged under Title 18, United States Code, Section 111. The statute has formed the basis for charges against most of the individuals charged during the past week. To legally sustain such a charge, the assault must have occurred against a federal law enforcement officer or employee (such as a federal law enforcement agent) while the officer was actively engaged in performing their official duties; or the act was committed “on account of” their status as a federal officer. Additionally, the element of force is required. Arguments, general insults or non-violent refusal to follow orders do not satisfy this element. There must be something more—physical force, the threat of force, or aggressive or hostile movements that create a reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury. To be sure, federal authorities have charged Delaney Hall protestors where circumstances warrant—see e.g., https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/new-jersey-rioter-delaney-hall-charged-kicking-and-biting-ice-officers.

The statute contains broad jurisdictional language, providing criminal liability beyond acts of physical violence to conduct that resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with federal officers engaged in the performance of official duties. Examples can include, but are not limited to: (i) opposing or obstructing a federal officer by force or threatened force; (ii) hindering or blocking a federal officer from carrying out official duties through forcible conduct; or (iii) obstructing or preventing federal officer’s duties through forcible or conduct.

There must be forcible conduct or a forcible threat evidencing the offender’s intent to assault. Mere passive resistance, verbal insults or criticism, or simple non-compliance do not rise to the level of an offense. Importantly, the United States Supreme Court has held that while a prosecution under Section 111 requires an intent to assault, it does not require the additional scienter that the victim is a federal officer. United States. v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975). Notably, the Court explained that Congress intended maximum protection for federal officers, and that the statute requires a criminal intent to do the prohibited act, not awareness of federal status.

Penalties for this offense are dependent on the specific circumstances and resulting injuries. A simple assault involving no physical contact is a misdemeanor carrying up to one year in prison. However, if the act involves physical contact or escalates to include a deadly weapon or bodily injury, it becomes a felony punishable by up to eight or twenty years in prison, respectively. Most of the 21 individuals charged to date from Delaney Hall incidents relate to protestors forming human chains to block roadways, locking arms to obstruct transport vans, and ignoring repeated lawful commands to disperse from the facility’s gates—essentially obstructing and interfering ICE operations to and from the facility. https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/morris-county-man-arrested-kicking-and-biting-ice-deportation-officers.

2. Destruction of Federal Property (18 U.S.C. § 1361)

If federal property, vehicles, security equipment, fencing, or facilities were intentionally damaged, federal prosecutors could pursue charges under Section 1361 and have done so recently. To sustain a conviction for this charge, federal prosecutors must show that some federal property was damaged in some form, and the offender did so willfully and intentionally. If the damage exceeds $1,000, it is classified as a felony punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Anything less than $1,000 is considered a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment.

3. Conspiracy Charges (18 U.S.C. §§ 371 or 372)

If a more proactive approach is undertaken and successful in identifying the scope of the offenders responsible for coordinating and funding unlawful activities, there are other charges that may lie. Under federal law, two or more individuals can be charged with conspiracy to commit a federal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, even if the planned offense is never completed. Federal authorities must prove only that two or more people agreed to commit a federal offense, at least one person took an overt act to carry out the goal of the conspiracy, and that the individuals knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy. Put more simply, prosecutors must show more than just talk or association—rather it must show a shared unlawful plan and some concrete step toward accomplishing the goal of the conspiracy.

An alternate way to charge offenders for interfering or impeding ICE operations may exist in Title 18, United States Code, Section 372, which makes it a federal crime for two or more individuals to conspire to prevent, injure or impede a federal officer in the discharge of their official duties. Like the assault charge described, evidence must exist to demonstrate the conspirators used force, intimidation or threats to effectuate this crime.

In either case, the focus would not be limited to individuals present at the scene. Investigators would also look for evidence of coordination, planning, or direction by outside actors, including communications, financial transfers, or logistical support that could link organizers or funders to the conduct on the ground. Establishing criminal liability would require proof that such actors knowingly joined and advanced a shared unlawful objective, rather than merely expressed general support or association after the fact.

4. The Federal Anti-Riot Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2102)

The federal Anti-Riot Act prohibits individuals who use interstate travel or communications to help incite, facilitate or carry out a riot or an attempted riot. To successfully prosecute this charge, the government must show that a defendant specifically intended to incite or take part in riot-related violence and then committed an overt act in furtherance of that plan.

The Act covers conduct such as traveling across state lines, using phones or other interstate facilities in furtherance of riot activities. Like most charges, viability turns on fact-specific evidence and circumstances. The law does not punish ordinary protest activity or protected speech, even if it is heated or provocative. The conduct must cross the line into unprotected incitement or actual riot-related violence. Additionally, the statute is not a general federal riot law. Federal jurisdiction depends upon an interstate-commerce nexus, such as interstate travel, telecommunications, internet communications or social media use that crosses state lines.

Conclusion

Can the federal government investigate and prosecute the unrest surrounding Delaney Hall? Yes—and it already has, through charges tied to specific unlawful acts. Whether prosecutors go further, however, will depend on whether they find evidence of broader coordination, funding or direction behind the activity. Federal authorities have both the tools and the jurisdiction to pursue that inquiry. Whether they choose to do so, and where the evidence ultimately leads, remains to be seen.

Christopher J. Gramiccioni is a former Assistant United States Attorney and former Monmouth County Prosecutor. He is the co-founding partner of Kingston Coventry LLC, a boutique litigation firm with offices in New Jersey and South Carolina.

MEDIA INQUIRIES: christ@kingstoncoventry.com