Criminal – Multiple convictions for supporting terrorism are vacated

Where a man was convicted of aiding and abetting, conspiring and attempting to contribute to terrorist groups, but his speech urged criminal activity that was neither sufficiently imminent nor sufficiently definite to lose First Amendment protection, and he did not help anyone commit crimes, his convictions were vacated and the case was remanded to the district court for entry of judgments of acquittal.

Background

Ali Al-Timimi was convicted of aiding and abetting, conspiring and attempting to contribute to terrorist groups. In July 2024, the district court found the Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019), undermined the validity of Al-Timimi’s convictions on Counts 1, 7 and 8, and so it vacated those convictions. Al-Timimi now appeals his convictions for Counts 2-6, 9 and 10.

Imminence

Speech advocating lawlessness or the use of force is unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” In this context, the Supreme Court has distinguished between “mere abstract teaching” of the “moral propriety” or “necessity” of violence, on the one hand, and “preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action,” on the other. The state may criminalize speech that is aimed at accomplishing the latter without running afoul of the First Amendment.

A separate category of unprotected speech is that which facilitates or solicits a particular crime. “Facilitation—also called aiding and abetting—is the provision of assistance to a wrongdoer with the intent to further an offense’s commission.” Speech constituting facilitation may be proscribed without offending the First Amendment because liability in such cases is not premised on mere advocacy of crime; rather, it relies on defendants’ “successful efforts to assist others by detailing to them the means of accomplishing the crimes.”

Here, Al-Timimi’s speech urged criminal activity that was neither sufficiently imminent nor sufficiently definite to lose First Amendment protection under Brandenburg. He encouraged those gathered at Kwon’s home on September 16 to “leave the United States,” “[j]oin the mujahideen” to “fight the Indians or the Russians or the Americans” and “defend Afghanistan.” He advised them to go to Pakistan, “join the LET and get some training from the LET camps.” He said they should “go through Royer” to connect with LET.

But Al-Timimi specified no time frame in which these actions should be completed and no details as to how they should be carried out. He did not suggest where in Pakistan the men should go, or which LET camp they should attend. He urged the men broadly to engage in jihad against any of three different nations—India, Russia or the United States. He said they should “defend” Afghanistan because they had a religious obligation to do so. Because these exhortations were vague and general, they fall short of advocating the imminent lawlessness contemplated by Brandenburg.

Solicitation

Five of the remaining charges against Al-Timimi were pursued as aiding-and-abetting offenses. To aid and abet a crime is to provide “assistance to a wrongdoer with the intent to further an offense’s commission.”

Al-Timimi did not help anyone to commit crimes. To be sure, he encouraged them. But the most that he did to further the commission of these crimes was to advise individuals—in quite general terms—on how to react to the September 11 attacks: Leave the United States, “[j]oin the mujahideen” and fight India or Russia or the United States. Or, in lieu of fighting, at least “leave America” and go to “live with the good Muslims” in another country.

A few days after those initial conversations, he gave general advice to Kwon and Hasan on evading detection while traveling: “don’t take anything suspicious”; act scared and ask for a lawyer if stopped. Nor did Al-Timimi facilitate the formation of any alleged conspiracy. And although participation can be comprised of speech alone, Al-Timimi’s speech was not participation but was merely encouragement.

Count Two—the only solicitation crime—charged Al-Timimi with soliciting others to commit treason by levying war against the United States. This charge fails for much the same reason as the aiding-and-abetting charges: While Al-Timimi certainly encouraged unlawful acts generally, the evidence did not demonstrate that he encouraged, with the requisite intent, a specific unlawful act. Accordingly, Al-Timimi’s convictions for all remaining charges of the superseding indictment and remand to the district court for entry of judgments of acquittal.

Vacated and remanded.

United States v. Al-Timimi, Case No. 14-4451, Jan. 9, 2026. 4th Cir. (Wynn), from EDVA Alexandria (Brinkema). Geremy C. Kamens for Appellant. Gordon D. Kromberg for Appellee. VLW 026-2-010. 31 pp.