The Proud Boys' $100M Lawsuit Is Led by a Lawyer With a History of White Nationalism — and Goat Sacrifice

Five convicted Proud Boys leaders are suing the U.S. government for $100 million, claiming they were victims of political persecution—not perpetrators of violent insurrection. Leading the suite is Augustus Sol Invictus: an attorney with deep ties to white nationalism, a criminal record from Charlottesville, and an open call for armed revolution. He has also admitted to sacrificing a goat and drinking its blood. 

Invictus was convicted in 2024 for burning objects to intimidate during the infamous 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. In January 2025 he was sentenced to 9 ½ months in prison for this conviction, but has not reported as he filed an appeal in March 2025.

Invictus quotes Nazi legal theorists, calls the Nuremberg Trials a “kangaroo court,” and once publicly declared, “the only thing that you can do to change the government is to arm yourselves and be prepared for war.” In a 2016 interview, when asked if he was advocating violent insurrection, he replied simply, “I am.”

Invictus has made a career out of defending violent extremists. He previously represented Marcus Faella, the head of the neo-Nazi group American Front, in an appeal of his conviction on domestic terrorism charges. Beyond the courtroom, Invictus was the editor of The Revolutionary Conservative, a publication that openly advocated violent revolution and ethno-nationalist ideology. 

He’s now representing the Proud Boys—five men found guilty by a jury of seditious conspiracy for their role in the January 6 insurrection. All five apologized during sentencing. But now, under Invictus’s influence, they’re recasting themselves as the true victims—deserving not just exoneration, but a nine-figure payout from the federal government.

Why This Lawsuit Shouldn’t Stand—But Might Be Settled Anyway

Based on legal precedent, the Proud Boys’ lawsuit shouldn’t get far. Heck v. Humphrey makes clear that someone can’t sue for “wrongful conviction” unless their conviction has first been overturned. None of these men meet that bar. They were convicted by a jury based on overwhelming evidence, and pardons—while politically powerful—do not erase guilt or suggest innocence.

A troubling precedent may be set by the Proud Boys' lawsuit, mirroring the recent $5 million settlement given to Ashli Babbitt's family. Babbitt, an Air Force veteran and QAnon adherent, was fatally shot during the Capitol riot, a death ruled legally justified. Yet, the payout suggests a concerning trend: the Justice Department, as it currently stands, might be inclined to compensate even those who committed illegal acts on January 6, essentially treating them as victims.

Settling This Lawsuit Would Open the Flood Gates

If this lawsuit is settled, it sets a precedent that turns insurrectionists into martyrs and incentivizes more violence. Experts say it will open the door for a flood of copycat lawsuits from the 1,600 other Jan. 6 defendants Trump has promised to pardon or already has.

“A settlement would suggest that the violence of January 6 was entirely justified,” warns historian Matthew Dallek. “It would say to the country that these Proud Boys who were convicted in a court of law, in a fair trial, were wrongfully prosecuted and victims. It just turns the entire day on its head.”