Outside Manhattan Supreme Court on a crisp September morning, a crowd gathered, their chants of "Free Luigi!" echoing down the courthouse steps. Some wore green hats and overalls, a nod to the Nintendo character Luigi, but their cause was deadly serious: the fate of Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old former Ivy League student accused of assassinating UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. On September 16, 2025, a New York judge dismissed the most severe charges against Mangione—two counts of murder as acts of terrorism—setting off a wave of debate about the boundaries of terrorism law and the role of ideology in criminal prosecutions.
According to Fox News, Mangione’s supporters have been a constant presence at his court appearances, waving signs and calling for jury nullification—a controversial tactic where jurors acquit a defendant despite evidence, based on their own beliefs about the law or the defendant's motives. But as legal experts told Fox News Digital, such an outcome remains unlikely. "This case is not a Prohibition case nor a draft-dodging situation—it was an outright premeditated murder," said Joseph Giacalone, a retired NYPD sergeant and criminal justice professor at Penn State Lehigh Valley. Still, the energy outside the courthouse was palpable, fueled by a belief among Mangione’s defenders that he is being prosecuted for his political views as much as his alleged actions.
The facts of the case are stark. Mangione is accused of fatally shooting Brian Thompson, a Minnesota father of two, outside a UnitedHealthcare shareholder conference in New York City on December 4, 2024. Prosecutors allege Mangione meticulously planned the attack, keeping journals that detailed his intent to send a message and his deep animosity toward the health insurance industry. Despite the gravity of the crime, the judge found no legal basis for the terrorism charges, citing precedent and the need to avoid overly broad interpretations of the law.
In his ruling, the judge stated, "The [terrorism] statute cannot be interpreted so broadly so as to cover individuals or groups who are not normally viewed as 'terrorists.'" The judge distinguished Mangione’s case from other terrorism prosecutions, observing, "The defendant’s targeted killing of one individual—although abhorrent and despicable—is not comparable." While acknowledging Mangione’s animus toward UnitedHealthcare and the health care industry, the judge concluded that his goal was not to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," a key requirement under terrorism statutes.
As reported by NBC News, the decision to dismiss the terrorism charges left a single, non-terrorism-related murder count: second-degree murder with intent to cause the death of another person. Mangione also faces two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and numerous other state charges. Federally, he is charged with murder, making him eligible for the death penalty. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The legal distinction made by the judge is more than a technicality; it reflects the ongoing debate over how to prosecute politically motivated violence. As NBC News explained, terrorism laws in both New York and Utah require that the act be intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government unit." The judge ruled that the employees of UnitedHealthcare did not meet this definition, as they were considered too remote and abstract a group. If Mangione had opened fire at a conference packed with UnitedHealthcare employees, the outcome might have been different. Instead, the judge’s decision reaffirmed the principle that not all ideologically motivated violence constitutes terrorism under current law.
This ruling came just hours before Utah authorities charged Tyler Robinson in the September 10, 2025, killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a university rally. In that case, prosecutors also faced decisions about whether to pursue terrorism charges. Although Robinson’s actions arguably targeted a broader group—the attendees of a public rally and members of Turning Point USA—Utah prosecutors ultimately did not file terrorism charges, instead focusing on aggravated murder and other offenses. The parallel between the two cases highlights the complexities and inconsistencies in how terrorism statutes are applied across the country.
Historically, terrorism prosecutions in the United States have evolved in response to shifting social and political threats. Before the September 11 attacks, the focus was often on anarchists and labor activists. In the decades since, attention has turned to far-right violence and mass shootings. Yet, as NBC News noted, the law has rarely been used to address mass shootings, with the Oxford, Michigan school shooter in 2022 being one of the few exceptions. Prosecutors typically rely on murder or hate crime statutes, which are more deeply rooted in legal precedent and easier to prove in court.
Federal prosecutors in Mangione’s case have expressed concern about the broader impact of his actions. In a letter to a New York judge, they warned that "certain quarters of the public—who openly identify as acolytes of the defendant—have increasingly begun to view violence as an acceptable, or even necessary, substitute for reasoned political disagreement." They cited the July 28, 2025, mass shooting on Park Avenue by Shane Tamura, who killed four people and left behind a manifesto blaming the NFL and football for chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Supporters of Mangione, prosecutors alleged, "touted Tamura’s actions as a laudable continuation of the defendant’s philosophy." Just two weeks later, Charlie Kirk was assassinated in Utah, with the suspect accused of writing messages on the bullets used in the attack.
Despite the gravity of these events, the judge’s decision in Mangione’s case underscores a central tenet of American law: ideological motivation alone does not transform a murder into an act of terrorism. As NBC News put it, "A act of violence motivated by political ideology is not inherently an act of domestic terrorism." The judge’s ruling may have far-reaching implications, potentially limiting the ability of prosecutors to "upcharge" political murders as terrorism and setting a precedent for future cases nationwide.
Meanwhile, Mangione’s legal saga continues. Nearly 35,000 supporters have donated more than $1.2 million to his defense fund, according to Fox News. His court appearances remain a spectacle, with demonstrators donning Luigi costumes and holding signs advocating for jury nullification. As Mangione was escorted from the courtroom after the ruling, he offered a soft smile to his attorneys and a subtle eyebrow raise to the gallery—a moment captured by reporters and broadcast across social media.
For now, Luigi Mangione stands trial not as a terrorist, but as an accused murderer. The outcome of his case, and the legal debates it has sparked, will undoubtedly shape how America confronts the intersection of violence, ideology, and the law in the years to come.
