One of the biggest cases of the year isn’t before the Supreme Court; it doesn’t involve an adult film star, corrupt operatives, Russia, or the president. It pits celebrities of a different type against one another: superstar litigators Karen Dunn and Roberta Kaplan—who argued the landmark gay rights case United States v. Windsor—are taking on ignominious white supremacist Richard Spencer and 24 of his ilk who planned, executed, and celebrated the Charlottesville riots together.

Funded by Integrity First for America, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending democratic principles, the suit charges the defendants with conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their civil rights and failing to stop the anti-civil rights conspiracy under federal law.

The two federal provisions under which Kaplan is bringing suit were Congress’s attempt at codifying the 13th Amendment. That’s a little unusual: The 13th Amendment was passed to end slavery and interpreted by the courts to extend to “the badges of slavery.” Today, it’s rarely invoked.

When I spoke to Kaplan in February, a month-and-a-half after the amended complaint was filed, I asked her about her choice of charges. She pointed out that the deprivation of rights in Charlottesville did center on race. Echoing my gut reaction, she commented, “No one would think we’d be litigating the 13th Amendment anymore in 2018.”

The complaint includes an even wider-reaching set of charges under Virginia law.

It’s not just the array of charges that makes the case a sizable undertaking. “Not just the size of the conspiracy and the complexity of the story,” Kaplan points out, “but the massive cost because of who the opponents are.” The case against the white nationalists comes down to three points:

They planned to do this. They did it. They celebrated successfully doing this.

There’s extensive evidence of planning, irrefutable multi-media documentation of the rally and its sequelae, and an abundance of proof of the celebrations that followed. Though portrayed some places as a case about incitement, it’s not. Rather, as Kaplan says, “it’s all in the family.” The defendants allegedly conspired with one another and with one another’s groups to commit violence.

The defendants’ first-line defense, as I noted before, is the First Amendment. They’re claiming they were just exercising their rights to free speech, association, and assembly. I stand by my comparison: It’s about as viable as Ocean’s Eleven asserting a First Amendment defense to conspiracy charges.

Their second-order defense was no better; in fact, it wasn’t really based in law at all.