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.
Youth in the AV should have schools that promote their academic, emotional, and social growth in an environment in which...
By definition, 287(g) agreements offer agencies a formalized framework for collaboration with federal authorities, access to additional training, and a...
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently announced a new program for co-opting local sheriffs into deporting immigrants called the “Warrant...
We showcase existing solutions and new research from the community. Support us by sharing your own resources to our hub.
