4th Circuit Vacates Remaining Post‑9/11 Convictions, Rules Al‑Timimi’s Speech Was Protected

A federal appeals court on Friday vacated the remaining criminal convictions of Islamic lecturer Ali Al‑Timimi, finding that his speeches in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were protected by the First Amendment. The unanimous three‑judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Al‑Timimi’s remarks, though inflammatory and offensive, did not amount to a concrete criminal plan or provide operational assistance for any specific crime.

Background

After a 2005 trial in Alexandria, Virginia, a jury convicted Al‑Timimi on 10 counts, including soliciting treason, aiding and abetting a violation of the Neutrality Act, and several firearms offenses. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema sentenced him to life in prison, a term she later described as mandated by federal guidelines that she called "very draconian." Some co‑defendants were convicted on related charges and served lengthy sentences; prosecutors characterized the group as the so‑called "Virginia Jihad Network," while critics sometimes referred to aspects of the investigation as the "paintball" cases because of weekend training exercises attended by some participants.

Appeals And Legal Issues

The case involved a lengthy series of appeals and legal complications, including litigation over the government's use of warrantless surveillance. Al‑Timimi remained in prison until 2020, when he was moved to home confinement in part because of COVID‑19 concerns. In 2024, Judge Brinkema vacated three of his convictions in light of intervening Supreme Court precedent, leaving seven convictions under appeal.

"Plenty of speech encouraging criminal activity is protected under the First Amendment," Judge James Wynn wrote. "The First Amendment’s protection does not depend on the popularity or palatability of the message conveyed. On the contrary, it is most vital when speech offends, disturbs, or challenges prevailing sensibilities."

In Friday’s opinion, the appeals court said the government’s case rested entirely on Al‑Timimi’s words in the immediate aftermath of the attacks and that those words, however odious, did not cross the constitutional line into unprotected, inciting conduct because they did not present a concrete plan or operational assistance for a particular offense.

Reactions And Next Steps

Al‑Timimi’s lawyer, Federal Defender Geremy Kamens, praised the decision, calling it a reaffirmation of a core First Amendment principle: that the government may not criminalize speech solely because it is unpopular or offensive. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who represented Al‑Timimi for many years, noted the unusually prolonged appeals process and said the case raised significant due‑process and free speech concerns.

Judges James Wynn, Stephanie Thacker and Pamela Harris — all appointed by President Obama — issued the unanimous ruling. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria declined to comment. The Justice Department may seek review by requesting en banc rehearing before the full 4th Circuit or by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court.