Amid tightening protest laws, the activist is appealing a district court’s ruling applying a “terrorism enhancement” to her sentence.
By Naveena Sadasivam, Grist
This story was originally published by Grist. You can subscribe to its weekly newsletter here.
On election night in 2016, Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya set fire to a bulldozer and construction equipment at a Dakota Access Pipeline construction site in Iowa. Over the next few months, the activists used oxy-acetylene torches to melt holes in pipeline valves at three other locations in the state. It was at the height of the Indigenous-led protests against the 1,172-mile-long pipeline, which opponents like the Standing Rock Sioux tribe argued would pollute local water sources and contaminate soil. When Reznicek and Montoya’s actions failed to halt pipeline construction, they held a press conference and publicly took responsibility for their actions.

And at the state level, in part responding to the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, lawmakers in at least 17 states have passed legislation to increase jail terms and monetary penalties for offenses such as vandalizing and tampering with so-called critical infrastructure. In recent years, nonviolent climate protesters have been charged with trespassing, theft, and terrorism.
At issue in Reznicek’s case is whether her conduct was “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” Prosecutors in the case argued that Reznicek’s conduct fit this description because she held a press conference in front of the Iowa Utilities Board office and used a crowbar to dismantle an Iowa Utilities sign.
“They were trying to say to the government, ‘If you do this kind of thing, we’re going to go out there and take the law into our own hands and end the pipeline one way or the other,’” the government prosecutor said at the hearing. “That is incredibly dangerous and exactly what this enhancement is designed to stop.”
Robert Richman, Reznicek’s attorney, argued that her actions did not target the Iowa Utilities Board and that her statements and actions did not indicate she tried to “influence” or “retaliate” against the agency. “There’s no question that Ms. Reznicek was unhappy with the decision of the Utility Board to allow the pipeline, but the damage to private property was calculated to stop the pipeline, not to punish the board,” he said.
In a 2021 statement to the court, Reznicek, who has long been associated with the Catholic Worker Movement, which promotes a social-justice oriented interpretation of Catholicism, said she is “not a political person” and “certainly not a terrorist.”
“I am simply a person who cares deeply about an extremely basic human right that is under threat: Water,” she wrote.
The appellate court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming weeks.
Recent Posts
Bernie Sanders Vs. Howard Schultz: Longtime Starbucks CEO Grilled On Company’s Union-Busting Tactics
March 30, 2023
Take Action Now Bernie Sanders grilled the former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz about the company’s illegal anti-union practices by Amy…
Tragedy In Ciudad Juárez Highlights Dangers Faced By Migrants
March 30, 2023
Take Action Now The tragic event shines a light on the multitude of dangers facing the hundreds of thousands of migrants who set off on perilous…
How Abortion Bans Are Impacting Pregnant Patients Across The Country
March 30, 2023
Take Action Now Leading legal scholar Mary Ziegler and Tennessee OB-GYN Dr. Nikki Zite talk to ProPublica about ominous trends and threats to…
The Biden Budget Does Some Good But Could Do More If It Cut The Pentagon
March 30, 2023
Take Action Now It’s clear that keeping the status quo on Pentagon spending means needlessly keeping millions mired in poverty By Lindsay…