Sovereign Citizen extremists (SCE)
Sovereign citizens are extremists or radicals who claim they are a government unto themselves. They say they have the right to reside in the United States without being under U.S. or state government control. Sovereigns typically don’t pay taxes, register vehicles, or obtain driver’s licenses. They also create their own “legal papers” and claim they are subject only to English common law.
Accurate prevalence rates of sovereign citizens are difficult to ascertain largely due to a lack of government data. “Watchdog” organizations and education centers have seemingly been filling in the gaps, most notably the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, and the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) headquartered at the University of Maryland. These groups have been tracking sovereign citizens for many years. A 2020 START research brief estimated that approximately 30% of all far-right extremists, in their Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS) database, “…are or were members of the sovereign citizen movement, antigovernment militias and/or express anti-government views”. The best estimates, indicate that in the U.S., there are approximately 300,000 to 500,000 sovereign citizens and their numbers were expected to grow (Southern Poverty Law Center).
Sovereigns generally dislike law enforcement, and some have turned to physical violence. For this reason, officers should exercise caution when interacting with them. Although sovereign citizens share no common physical characteristics, peace officers can look for certain indicators to help identify them. For instance, a sovereign citizen’s vehicle may not have a license plate, or it may have a fake plate for a non-existent state or country. The vehicle may have anti-government bumper stickers or window decals that say “Posse Comitatus,” meaning “Power of the County.”
Sovereign Citizen extremists (SCE) perceive that law enforcement efforts and judicial actions infringe upon key personal rights and individual sovereignty — such as the right to travel — most strongly during these circumstances. SCEs believe they personally can ignore laws and act according to their own sovereign citizen ideology. Consequently, when SCEs perceive government representatives directly infringing on their rights and freedoms in an irrevocable way — such as police serving a warrant or a judge ruling against legal filings intended to tie up court proceedings — SCEs resort to violence.
SCEs—like their non-violent sovereign citizen counterparts—believe they are immune from federal, state, and local laws and that many Constitutional amendments are false. They reject the authority of the government, law enforcement, and the courts because they think these entities are actually commercial entities that cannot compel participation in a commercial contract (although many sovereign citizens recognize the law enforcement authority of the elected sheriff).
Many believe that US born citizens can use their birth certificates to access secret US Treasury bank accounts to pay debts and fines. SCEs believe they have unfettered authority to travel “on the land” and avoid paying taxes and fees. Sometimes they create their own parallel government institutions, such as courts and grand juries — which have no legal authority — to support their claims.
SCE tactics differ from most violent extremists in that their attacks are reactive and personal, rather than symbolic. Other domestic terrorists typically attack symbolic targets to oppose laws and policies they disagree with rather than certain individuals.
By contrast, even when SCEs plot their violence over time or threaten attacks, it is often in direct response to an ongoing personal grievance, such as an arrest or court order. In almost all of the 24 incidents we reviewed, the targets were the specific individuals who the SCE perceive violated their rights, rather than public symbols or anonymous representatives of the government. While other domestic terrorists may be motivated by personal grievances as well as ideology, rarely do they target a specific individual.
Domestic terrorism attacks committed by individuals motivated by anti-government ideologies but who are not SCEs targeted random law enforcement and government employees due to their symbolic value as targets rather than a personal grievance against those individuals, according to case documents. These cases include the shooting attack on three TSA agents at Los Angeles Internationa Airport in November 2013 (killing one); the murder of two Las Vegas policemen and a civilian in May 2014 by Jerad and Amanda Miller (who were killed during the attack); and Eric Michael Frein , who allegedly shot and killed a policeman and injured another in September 2014.
Barring any significant change in SCE ideology, a major event, or a charismatic leader that advocates for more assertive violence in support of SCEs’ perceived rights, DHS I&A assessed the sporadic pattern and level of violence at homes, traffic stops, and government sites would continue through 2015. However, each individual is unique and may have different interpretations of SCE ideology, especially since there is no agreed-upon dogma or national leader. Some domestic terrorists may combine elements of SCE ideologies with other, more aggressive violent antigovernment perspectives — such as militia extremism. Consequently, such individuals likely pose a greater threat of proactive violence than other SCEs.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
