Abstract
The federal government is increasingly weaponizing 18 U.S.C. § 111, originally enacted to protect federal officers from assault, in order to punish speech, protest, and dissent. But § 111 cannot be read to criminalize all resistance to federal authority, particularly when civilians reasonably mistake officers for private aggressors or respond to unlawful, excessive force. Through analysis of case law, jury instructions, and constitutional doctrine, this Essay shows that self-defense and mistake-of-fact claims are vital safeguards against unlawful state violence and essential to our democracy. In an era of political prosecutions, unannounced raids, plainclothes enforcement, and excessive force, the line between lawful arrest and unlawful threat has blurred. From the colonial resistance to general warrants to modern challenges to militarized policing, American law has long recognized that legitimacy flows not from the badge alone but from the legality
and transparency of state conduct. When state power becomes indistinguishable from criminal coercion, the U.S. Constitution protects—not prohibits—resistance. That resistance is not a crime. It is a constitutional duty.
To preserve that constitutional duty, this Essay proposes two legislative reforms to bring § 111 in line with constitutional foundations and prevent its use as a weapon against speech, protest, and dissent. First, Congress should amend the statute to require that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that the person defended against was a federal officer. Second, Congress should require as a threshold element of the crime that the defendant was not acting in lawful self-defense. These reforms would safeguard federal officers while reaffirming the Constitution’s deeper command: that lawful resistance to unlawful power is essential to a free and accountable democracy.
