Golden Gate Bridge Protesters Face Up to 15 Years in Prison

Seven activists who shut down the Golden Gate Bridge for four hours on Tax Day 2024 are now on trial in San Francisco, facing up to 15 years in prison on felony conspiracy charges. The case, brought by District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, has become a flashpoint in the national debate over the limits of political protest and the prosecution of civil disobedience.

The Protest

On the morning of April 15, 2024, 26 protesters drove onto the southbound lanes of the Golden Gate Bridge and stopped their vehicles. Using a tactic known as the “sleeping dragon,” they locked their arms inside metal tubes, forming a human chain that blocked traffic in both directions for approximately four hours. The demonstration was part of a coordinated “Economic Blockade for Gaza” — a nationwide day of action timed for Tax Day to highlight U.S. taxpayer funding of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, where the Gaza Ministry of Health had reported more than 30,000 Palestinian deaths since October 7, 2023.

According to NBC Bay Area, the California Highway Patrol removed the protesters around noon, and all 26 were arrested. District Attorney Brooke Jenkins initially released them, citing insufficient evidence, but announced charges months later in August 2024. Similar coordinated demonstrations also occurred that day on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York, on Interstate 5 near Eugene, Oregon, and at airports and highways in Illinois and elsewhere.

The Charges and Trial

Of the original 26 defendants — known as the “Golden Gate 26” — seven are currently standing trial before Judge Teresa Caffese in San Francisco Superior Court. They face felony conspiracy charges along with multiple misdemeanors including false imprisonment, trespassing, and obstruction. If convicted, each defendant could receive up to 15 years in prison.

In a preliminary hearing in November 2024, Judge Brendan P. Conroy dismissed 32 of the original 44 charges, citing lack of evidence, but allowed the felony conspiracy charges to proceed. As KTVU reported, the judge also signaled openness to reducing the felonies to misdemeanors at a future hearing. One defendant was dismissed from the case entirely.

Assistant District Attorney Angela Roze told the jury that the case is straightforward, arguing that while protesters may have a legitimate cause, “it does not excuse breaking the law.” The prosecution has documented specific harms caused by the shutdown, including an infant who missed a pre-surgery appointment and was trapped without formula, a person with a brain tumor who missed critical medical care, a disabled child stranded on a school bus, and a surgeon forced to cancel all operations that day. Approximately 20,000 vehicles typically cross the Golden Gate Bridge on weekday mornings between 8 a.m. and noon.

The Defense

Defense attorneys argue the case represents a politically motivated overreach. Deputy Public Defender Nuha Abusamra described the charges as “criminalizing political dissent” and “overcharging, plain and simple.” Defense attorney Jeff Wozniak called the prosecution “a humongous waste of resources,” noting that the Golden Gate Bridge District had initially sought $162,554 in lost toll revenue — a demand it later dropped after critics noted the tolls were merely delayed, not lost.

Defendant Conrad de Jesus, an architect who testified he joined the protest at the last minute, explained his motivation: “When I saw animals could be saved, why couldn’t humans be saved?” Another defendant, Sara Cantor, a 37-year-old Jewish-American paralegal, testified that she served as the police liaison for the protest and that the group had agreed to clear the bridge immediately if an emergency arose.

Legal and Political Context

The case comes amid a broader national debate about protest tactics and the Israel-Gaza conflict. Critics note that similar bridge-blocking protests in San Francisco’s history, including a Bay Bridge shutdown in November 2023 involving 78 demonstrators, were resolved with misdemeanor charges or community service. Neighboring Alameda County, under District Attorney Pamela Price, declined to file similar charges for Gaza-related protests.

The defense is expected to argue the “necessity principle” — that their actions were intended to save human lives and that all other avenues of protest had been exhausted. Civil rights advocates warn that if this prosecution succeeds, it could set a chilling precedent, potentially treating every organized act of protest as a criminal conspiracy.

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, appointed in 2022 after the recall of progressive DA Chesa Boudin, has taken a tough-on-crime approach. She defended the prosecution, stating that the demonstration “caused a level of safety risk, including extreme threats to the health and welfare of those trapped, that we as a society cannot ignore or allow.”

What’s Next

The trial, which began in May 2026, is ongoing as defense witnesses continue to testify. The jury’s verdict will likely have significant implications for how civil disobedience is prosecuted in San Francisco and beyond. A decision is expected in the coming weeks.