National Security Law / Criminal Law / Legal Policy

The recent violent assault on peaceful demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, by a man wielding a makeshift flamethrower has shaken the legal community and reignited national debates about terrorism laws, penalties, and judicial policy. Eight individuals, mostly older adults attending a rally supporting Israeli hostages, were seriously injured in what investigators are calling a targeted act of political violence.

As more details emerge, the legal industry is called to evaluate: Are our laws adequate to confront modern domestic terrorism? And should the most egregious acts—particularly those with political motives and mass harm—trigger stricter punitive measures, including deportation for non-citizens and federal capital punishment?

The Colorado Attack: Facts and Legal Context

On June 1, 2025, Mohamed Sabry Soliman allegedly used incendiary devices and a makeshift flamethrower to assault participants at a pro-Israel demonstration in Boulder. Witnesses reported Soliman shouted “Free Palestine” before igniting the attack. The event was organized by the Boulder Jewish Community Center as part of a peaceful advocacy campaign.

Authorities quickly apprehended Soliman. The FBI is now investigating the act as domestic terrorism, signaling the case may proceed under federal anti-terrorism statutes rather than solely state criminal law.

The Legal Landscape: Defining and Prosecuting Domestic Terrorism

1. Federal Terrorism Statutes

Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 2331), domestic terrorism is defined as acts dangerous to human life that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy through violence. Although the definition exists, there is no standalone charge for “domestic terrorism”—unlike international terrorism.

Thus, federal prosecutors must often rely on related charges like:

• Use of weapons of mass destruction (18 U.S.C. § 2332a),
• Arson, explosives, and bombing charges (18 U.S.C. § 844),
• Hate crimes and civil rights violations (18 U.S.C. § 249),
• Assault or attempted murder across state lines.

This legal fragmentation can dilute the public recognition of an act as terrorism and sometimes constrain prosecutorial tools.

2. Calls for Stronger Legal Instruments

The Colorado attack has prompted renewed calls for:

• A specific domestic terrorism statute carrying enhanced penalties,
• Mandatory designation of ideologically motivated attacks as terrorism,
• Broader federal jurisdiction over politically motivated hate crimes,
• Expanded surveillance authority and coordination between federal and local agencies.

Deportation and National Security

In cases involving non-citizen perpetrators, the question of deportation becomes prominent.

• Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, non-citizens convicted of crimes involving terrorism, aggravated felonies, or moral turpitude are deportable and inadmissible to the U.S.
• If Soliman is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, deportation after sentence completion is legally permissible—and likely mandatory under DHS protocols.

Some legal scholars and legislators have pushed for accelerated removal proceedings for non-citizens convicted of terrorism-related offenses, or even pre-trial denaturalization for dual nationals under national security concerns.

The Death Penalty Debate: Capital Punishment for Domestic Terrorism

The attack also reopens the fraught debate over capital punishment in terrorism cases.

• While many U.S. states have abolished the death penalty, the federal government retains it under 18 U.S.C. § 3591.
• Recent federal terrorism prosecutions (e.g., the Boston Marathon bomber) have resulted in capital sentences.
• If Soliman is charged under applicable federal statutes (e.g., use of explosives resulting in injury or death), prosecutors could pursue capital punishment, especially if victims die or suffer permanent injury.

Critics argue that capital punishment is inconsistently applied, disproportionately affects minorities, and lacks deterrent effect. Proponents contend it is warranted in terrorism cases to ensure ultimate accountability and affirm societal condemnation of politically motivated violence.

Legal Industry Considerations

The legal community must balance several imperatives:

• Safeguarding civil liberties while expanding national security enforcement powers.
• Ensuring due process and evidentiary standards in emotionally charged, high-stakes prosecutions.
• Clarifying and standardizing how acts of domestic terrorism are defined and prosecuted.
• Advocating for professional ethics when defending or prosecuting terrorism cases, especially in politically sensitive environments.

Legal professionals also bear a role in shaping future law and policy. This includes contributing to model legislation, advising government agencies, and guiding public discourse on the acceptable limits of power in the name of security.

Conclusion: Modernize and Strengthen Laws

The Boulder attack is a tragic reminder of the vulnerabilities in open societies—and of the urgent need to modernize legal frameworks to deal with ideologically driven violence at home. As the legal system responds, it must weigh punishment, deterrence, and constitutional safeguards. The debate over deportation, enhanced sentencing, and the death penalty will continue to test the legal industry’s commitment to justice, national security, and rule of law.