Amicus Brief: Manhart v. WESPAC Foundation, Inc.

On April 15, 2024, a group of activists staged an anti-Israel demonstration. Using PVC piping, they linked arms across Interstate 190 near O’Hare International Airport, blocking traffic for more than two hours. The protest was organized by a group known as A15 Action, which sought “to disrupt and blockade economic logistical hubs and the flow of capital.” Christopher Manhart brought a class-action lawsuit alleging that the blockade trapped him and others on the road, causing them to miss their flights. For Manhart specifically, missing his flight caused him also to miss an important work dinner and networking session.

The events that gave rise to this litigation exemplify a growing phenomenon that Manhattan Institute fellow Tal Fortgang has previously described as “civil terrorism.” To draw attention to their cause, demonstrators pull unlawful stunts—in this case, a traffic blockade—that inflict costs on law-abiding Americans. These activists don’t aim to persuade, but instead to make civilian life under the political status quo miserable to the point that affected civilians lobby elected officials on behalf of the demonstrators’ cause, just to make the disruptions stop.

Civil terrorism exploits the fact that misdemeanors committed in large groups can be hugely disruptive and even dangerous but are rarely prosecuted. But even in the absence of prosecutions, law-abiding citizens need not tolerate, much less capitulate to, attacks on the good working order of American life. They can deter acts of civil terrorism by bringing lawsuits against those who commit such unlawful acts, winning compensation for those who lost time and money to civil terrorism and simultaneously raising the cost of future demonstrations. Manhart’s lawsuit here represents such an effort. 

But the district court used that invocation of the theory of civil terrorism as evidence that Manhart seeks to quash defendants’ legitimate political expression and dismissed the lawsuit. That conclusion reflects a misunderstanding of the theory of civil terrorism and its role in Manhart’s claims. Now on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the Manhattan Institute has filed an amicus brief to correct the district court’s misunderstanding and allow the lawsuit to proceed precisely for reasons illuminated by the theory of civil terrorism. This case targets unlawful conduct, not lawful speech, and conflating the two is precisely what allows lawlessness to grow unabated.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.

Tal Fortgang is a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

With thanks to law school associate Rohit Goyal.

Photo: Feverpitched / iStock / Getty Images Plus via Getty Images