What can federal court cases tell us about terrorism in the U.S.?

Prosecuting Illicit Threat Actors

Download the full project summary.

Project Summary

This project will build upon prior NCITE research examining how terrorism cases that do and do not involve U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are prosecuted. Cases without FTO-affiliation lack clear charging statutes, forcing prosecutors to delay intervention until specific criminal conduct has occurred. The project will provide guidance for prosecutors, investigators, and analysts on effective charging statutes for both types of cases by analyzing court documents (sourced from PACER and other public sources) across three threat categories: persistent designated threats such as ISIS, escalating threats such as Iran-aligned activity, and emergent threats such as nihilistic or anti-technology violent extremism.

Purpose/Objectives

This project gives DHS end users an evidence-based account of which federal charges are commonly used in terrorism cases, helping investigators and prosecutors build viable cases against persistent designated threats as well as emergent threat actors whose organizations have not been formally designated.

Method

The team analyzes federal court records for at least three threat categories selected with stakeholder input: a persistent designated threat, an escalating threat, and an emergent threat. Documents come from the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system, the Department of Justice terrorism case dataset, and the FBI and DHS Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism. Analysis combines systematic content coding across cases using multiple trained raters with quantitative techniques including historiometry.

Outputs and Impact

• An account of how federal charging practice differs between individuals affiliated with designated foreign terrorist organizations and individuals connected to undesignated networks, and what that difference means for the timing of intervention relative to an act of violence.
• Multi-year trend analysis of federal cases associated with a persistent designated threat, building on prior findings that case volume is rising after a decline around 2020 and 2021, and that defendants continue to pursue both travel and homegrown mobilization pathways.
• Analysis of how prosecutors build cases against emergent threats such as nihilistic and antitechnology violent extremism, where no designation exists and statutory precedent is thin.
• Assessment of the prosecutorial gap around swatting, where conspiring networks can typically be charged only with filing a false report or communicating an interstate threat, sometimes reduced to misdemeanors, which the team argues limits the ability to dismantle those networks.

---

Reports and Publications

Snapshot of U.S. Federal Cases Against Violent Incels

There have been a growing number of federal arrests relating to violent incels. This report outlines the federal efforts that are being taken to address this rising concern.

Dismantling Domestic Terrorism Through Prosecutions: A Case Study of Atomwaffen Division

The prosecution of Atomwaffen provides a unique opportunity to review the types of mostly non-terrorism-related federal charges brought against a distinct domestic terrorist organization and the legal consequences of being a violent adherent to the ideology.

Snapshot of U.S. Federal Cases Against Violent QAnon Adherents

This document outlines federal criminal cases involving adherents to the QAnon conspiracy theory.

---

Research Team

Seamus Hughes

• University of Nebraska at Omaha
• NCITE Senior Research Faculty and Policy Associate
• Expertise: Research journalism, terrorism, public policy, federal courts

Mackenzie Harms

• University of Nebraska at Omaha
• NCITE Research Associate
• Expertise: Leadership, creativity, cognition, organizational behavior, ideology, countering violent extremism, psychology of terrorism