On September 16, 2025, a New York courtroom became the stage for a pivotal ruling in one of the most closely watched criminal cases of the year. Judge Gregory Carro dismissed state terrorism charges against Luigi Mangione, the 27-year-old accused of fatally shooting Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in a brazen daylight attack last December. The decision, which also tossed out a first-degree murder count that could have carried a life sentence without parole, leaves Mangione facing a second-degree murder charge and a raft of other counts—alongside looming federal charges that could result in the death penalty.
The events leading to this legal crossroads have gripped the nation. On December 4, 2024, just before 7 a.m., Thompson was shot three times as he approached a Midtown Manhattan hotel, preparing for an investors’ conference. The gunman, masked and armed with a 3-D printed handgun fitted with a suppressor, escaped on a bicycle, weaving through Central Park and vanishing into the city. According to NBC News, the ensuing manhunt stretched for five days and across state lines, ending at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania. There, Mangione—who was recognized by a sharp-eyed employee after police released surveillance images—was arrested while quietly eating breakfast and using his laptop.
Authorities say Mangione left behind a handwritten manifesto and other writings, some of which surfaced in court filings. In one alleged diary entry, he wrote, "It’s targeted, precise, and doesn’t risk innocents. Most importantly, the point is self-evident. The point is made in the news headline ‘Insurance CEO killed at annual investors conference.'" Prosecutors argued these writings showed Mangione’s intent to make a public statement about what he saw as the greed and corruption of the U.S. health care system. Police also found a note explicitly accusing companies of profiting from the system’s flaws.
As the case unfolded, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sought to push the boundaries of New York’s terrorism law—legislation enacted in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Bragg’s office contended that Mangione’s actions were designed not just as a personal vendetta, but as a calculated attempt to intimidate the public and pressure government or corporate policy. "A frightening, well-planned, targeted murder that was intended to cause shock and attention and intimidation," Bragg described it, according to The New York Times.
But Judge Carro, in a detailed written ruling, was unconvinced. He pointed out that New York’s terrorism statute requires clear evidence of an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence government policy. "There was no evidence presented that the defendant made any demands of government or sought any particular governmental policy change, let alone that he did so by intimidation or coercion," Carro wrote. The judge noted that while Mangione’s writings and actions were undeniably ideological, they did not fit the legal definition of terrorism. Instead, Carro found, Mangione’s objective appeared to be drawing attention to perceived greed in the insurance industry and, perhaps, harming UnitedHealthcare’s financial standing.
The ruling was a blow to the prosecution’s strategy. As Deadline reported, the dismissal of the terrorism charges challenges Bragg’s attempt to frame the killing as an act of terror—a move that, if successful, could have set a new precedent in how political violence is prosecuted in New York. Legal experts, such as Seton Hall Law School professor Jonathan Hafetz, praised the decision as “well-reasoned,” warning that “broadly labeling violence, even horrific violence as in this case, as terrorism can be misused for political purposes and have a chilling consequence on free expression.”
Despite this partial victory for the defense, Mangione’s legal peril remains acute. The second-degree murder charge alone could see him spend 25 years to life in prison if convicted. He also faces weapons and forgery charges in New York, and federal prosecutors—who are not bound by the state’s more restrictive statutes—have announced their intention to seek the death penalty. Mangione’s defense team, led by former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo, has fought vigorously, even arguing that the dual state and federal prosecutions raise double jeopardy concerns. Judge Carro, however, rejected a request to delay the state trial until after the federal proceedings, calling the claim “premature.”
The legal battle has played out against a backdrop of intense public interest and protest. Mangione’s case, as The New York Times noted, quickly became a lightning rod for anger at America’s private health care system. Each court appearance has drawn crowds of supporters—some camping outside the courthouse for days, others waving placards reading “Free Luigi” and “Innocent until proven guilty.” His legal defense fund has swelled to over $1.5 million, reflecting both the depth of public feeling and the high stakes involved.
Thompson’s murder also sparked a broader conversation about violence against public figures and the role of ideology in motivating such acts. In the months since the killing, the U.S. has witnessed a string of high-profile attacks, including the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and attempts on the lives of politicians like President Donald Trump and Minnesota legislator Melissa Hortman. Prosecutors have even alleged that Mangione encouraged others to commit similar acts of violence, heightening the sense of urgency around the case.
Inside the courtroom on September 16, the atmosphere was charged. Supporters wore T-shirts emblazoned with Mangione’s name, and the news of the judge’s decision was met with cheers outside. Yet, for all the attention, the legal questions at the heart of the case remain thorny. New York’s terrorism laws, passed in the shadow of 9/11, have rarely been used, and judges have often been skeptical of attempts to expand their reach. The state’s highest court has previously overturned terrorism convictions in cases involving gang violence, and only recently has the law been successfully applied in hate-motivated mass shootings, such as the Buffalo supermarket attack in 2022.
For now, Mangione’s immediate future is clear: hearings on the remaining charges are set to begin December 1, 2025. Federal proceedings are expected to follow soon after. Thompson’s family, UnitedHealthcare, and a nation transfixed by the intersection of violence, protest, and the law, will be watching closely as the next chapter unfolds.
Sometimes, a courtroom decision is about more than just one defendant or one victim—it’s a reflection of how a society chooses to define its gravest crimes. For Luigi Mangione, the line between murder and terrorism will be drawn by the evidence and the law, not just by public outrage or ideology.
