Skip to main content

What really matters

In a world with too much noise and too little context, Vox helps you make sense of the news. We don’t flood you with panic-inducing headlines or race to be first. We focus on being useful to you — breaking down the news in ways that inform, not overwhelm.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join today

The US Department of Justice is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at Jeff Sessions

As attorney general, Jeff Sessions now heads the Justice Department.

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
US Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Update at bottom of the story.

It is hard to believe this is happening, but it’s real: The US Department of Justice is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at now–Attorney General Jeff Sessions during his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year.

According to Ryan Reilly at HuffPost, Code Pink activist Desiree Fairooz was arrested in January after she laughed at a claim from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) that Sessions’s history of “treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented.”

Sessions, in fact, has a long history of opposing the equal treatment of all Americans under the law. He has repeatedly criticized the historic Voting Rights Act. He voted against hate crime legislation that protected LGBTQ people, arguing, “Today, I’m not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don’t see it.” And his nomination for a position as a federal judge was rejected in the 1980s after he was accused of making racist remarks, including a supposed joke that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “was okay until I found out they smoked pot.”

Given this history, Fairooz laughed at Shelby’s claim.

But federal prosecutors have pushed forward with the case against Fairooz. As Reilly reported, prosecutors argue that “the laugh amounted to willful ‘disorderly and disruptive conduct’ intended to ‘impede, disrupt, and disturb the orderly conduct’ of congressional proceedings.” In court, they have tried to emphasize that the laugh was extraordinarily disruptive, with a US Capitol Police officer claiming that Fairooz laughed “very loudly” and people in the hearings turned around when they heard it.

Fairooz’s defense, meanwhile, has argued that her laughter was a reflex and not meant to disrupt the hearings. Fairooz was also in the back of the room, and her laughter had no noticeable impact, based on video of the hearings, on Shelby’s introductory speech for Sessions.

The trial will continue at the Superior Court in DC this week. If convicted, Fairooz faces a fine of up to $500 and up to six months’ imprisonment for the laugh-related charge. She is also charged with another misdemeanor for “allegedly parading, demonstrating or picketing within a Capitol, evidently for her actions after she was being escorted from the room,” Reilly reported.

Fairooz has a history of disruptive protests. During protests over the Iraq War, she put fake blood on her hands and confronted then–Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

This time, however, Fairooz claims she was not trying to be disruptive — but merely laughing.

These details are all salient for the legal case, but it’s important not to lose sight of the big picture here: The federal government is literally prosecuting someone for laughing. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the Justice Department — which Sessions now leads as attorney general — is doing the prosecuting when the laughter was directed at its leader. At the very least, it’s not a good look for the top law enforcement agency in the country.


Update, May 3 at 4:15 pm: According to Reilly at HuffPost, a jury convicted Fairooz on both charges against her, but jurors rejected federal prosecutor’s claims regarding her laughter.

In convicting Fairooz, jurors told Reilly that they didn’t focus on the moment Fairooz laughed, but rather what happened after she laughed. When a US Capitol Police officer tried to remove her from the hearings for laughing, she allegedly began to loudly protest and appeared to hold up a sign that she had brought up to the hearings.

“She did not get convicted for laughing. It was her actions as she was being asked to leave,” the jury foreperson said. “We did not agree that she should have been removed for laughing.”

Some jurors complained that the law is so broad that it forced them to convict. One said, “There’s almost no way that you can find them not guilty.”

Fairooz’s sentence will be decided later, perhaps when she’s back in court in June. Jail time is a possible outcome.


Watch: Robert Reich argues that Jeff Sessions needs to resign

See More:

More in Politics

Gen Z is finding religion. Why?Gen Z is finding religion. Why?
Religion

3 theories for Gen Z’s return to God and faith.

By Christian Paz
Trump’s latest blow to civil rights law, briefly explainedTrump’s latest blow to civil rights law, briefly explained
The Logoff

Why the executive order on “disparate impact” matters.

By Andrew Prokop
Trump will almost certainly get away with banning trans people from the militaryTrump will almost certainly get away with banning trans people from the military
Supreme Court

Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his ban on trans military service, after a lower court blocked it.

By Ian Millhiser
The US has quietly gotten into another war in the Middle EastThe US has quietly gotten into another war in the Middle East
World Politics

With near daily strikes against Yemen’s Houthis, is there an end in sight?

By Joshua Keating
This senator met with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador. He tells us what he saw.This senator met with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador. He tells us what he saw.
Podcast
Today, Explained podcast

A conversation with Sen. Chris Van Hollen about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s detention — and where America goes from here.

By Miles Bryan
Are Democrats playing into Trump’s hands by fighting deportations?Are Democrats playing into Trump’s hands by fighting deportations?
Politics

Immigration is Trump’s best issue. But the benefits of fighting his lawless deportations are worth the political risks.

By Eric Levitz