Your Saved Resources Close

  • Saved resources will appear here

Share

State Domestic Terrorism Laws in the United States: A Growing Threat to First Amendment Rights

Although political violence in the United States is a real problem, state domestic terrorism laws are arguably unnecessary. Indeed, federal policymakers have resisted enacting a specific crime of domestic terrorism, in part because of First Amendment concerns. In prominent cases of mass violence, such as the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Boston Marathon Bombing, or the church shooting in Charleston, the federal government successfully convicted the perpetrators without needing terrorism charges. Instead, they relied on a variety of laws that already criminalize violence. Besides being arguably unnecessary, state domestic terrorism laws can cause serious unintended consequences.

As this report will show, the overbroad and vague provisions of state domestic terrorism laws create significant First Amendment and free expression concerns. Read full report here.

more
resources

Reviving 287(g) Agreements Under the New Administration: Implementation, Concerns, and Implications

Spring 2026

By definition, 287(g) agreements offer agencies a formalized framework for collaboration with federal authorities, access to additional training, and a...

WARRANT SERVICE OFFICER PROGRAM A DECEPTIVE NEW MODEL FOR 287(g)

Spring 2026

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently announced a new program for co-opting local sheriffs into deporting immigrants called the “Warrant...

287(g) is Impacting Communities Across the United States. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Spring 2026

287(g): A Legal Mechanism for State Violence 287(g) is a provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility...