A recent federal appeals court decision is drawing attention across the national security and legal communities after judges vacated part of the conviction of a man who attempted to carry out a suicide bombing in New York City in the name of ISIS.
The April ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit could have broader implications for how prosecutors pursue terrorism cases involving self-radicalized individuals who act without direct contact with foreign terrorist organizations.
The case centers on Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi immigrant living in Brooklyn who detonated a homemade explosive device inside a crowded Port Authority subway corridor in Manhattan in December 2017. Ullah survived the blast, and while several commuters suffered minor injuries, no one was killed.
After his arrest, Ullah told investigators he carried out the attack “for the Islamic State,” according to court records. Prosecutors later charged him with multiple terrorism-related offenses, including violating 18 U.S.C. § 2339B — the federal “material support” statute that prohibits knowingly providing support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
The law has long been one of the Justice Department’s primary counterterrorism tools. Since 2015 alone, prosecutors have used the statute in nearly 200 ISIS-related cases involving everything from overseas travel attempts to online propaganda support and attack plotting.
But in its 2-1 ruling, the Second Circuit found that prosecutors failed to prove Ullah acted under the “direction or control” of ISIS, a requirement built into portions of the statute involving “personnel” or “services” provided to a terrorist organization.
Judge Myrna Pérez, writing for the majority alongside Judge Jed Rakoff, concluded that simply acting in support of ISIS ideology was not enough to satisfy the statute’s legal threshold if Ullah operated entirely independently.
The court noted that Ullah never communicated with ISIS members, never received operational instructions, and acted alone after consuming online propaganda.
The ruling did not overturn Ullah’s broader terrorism convictions or his life sentence, which remain intact. However, legal analysts say the decision could influence future terrorism prosecutions involving lone actors inspired online rather than directed by established terrorist networks.
Court Watch’s extensive analysis of the case, published in “The Rabbit Hole: When Terrorism Isn’t Terrorism Anymore,” described the ruling as potentially significant for modern counterterrorism investigations increasingly centered on self-radicalized attackers operating without formal ties to overseas groups.
According to the court record, Ullah built his explosive device using materials gathered from construction sites and instructions found in ISIS propaganda videos and online publications. Prosecutors argued at trial that ISIS intentionally used media campaigns to inspire supporters abroad to conduct attacks independently in Western countries.
Federal prosecutors maintained that Ullah’s bombing attempt was carried out “on behalf of” ISIS and designed to further the organization’s objectives.
Defense attorneys countered that Congress intentionally carved out protections in the statute for individuals acting independently of terrorist organizations, even if inspired by extremist propaganda.
The appellate court ultimately agreed with that interpretation in Ullah’s case.
The decision arrives as federal agencies continue to monitor threats from ISIS-inspired violence and online radicalization. In recent years, several domestic terrorism investigations have involved suspects accused of consuming extremist propaganda online without direct operational communication with foreign terrorist organizations.
Former federal prosecutors and national security experts quoted by Court Watch warned the ruling could complicate future material support cases if courts require more direct evidence of coordination between suspects and terrorist groups.
Others argued the ruling was narrowly tailored to Ullah’s circumstances and may have limited impact on cases involving direct communication, travel attempts, financial transfers, or operational coordination with terrorist organizations.
The Second Circuit’s opinion can be read here.
The Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which helped define the scope of the material support statute, is available here.
For now, legal observers say the Ullah ruling highlights a growing challenge for counterterrorism prosecutors in an era where extremist organizations increasingly rely on decentralized online radicalization rather than direct operational control.
