— Federal prosecutors told the court Friday they will not appeal a judge’s decision that removed the death penalty from the federal case against Luigi Mangione, a move that clears the way for a fall trial. U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett dismissed the death-eligible counts in late January, concluding that stalking cannot serve as a predicate crime of violence to make the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson a capital offense. The decision means jury selection in the federal proceeding is set to begin on Sept. 8, with opening statements scheduled for Oct. 13. Mangione has pleaded not guilty in both state and federal courts; a state trial is due to start June 8.
Key Takeaways
- On Feb. 27, 2026, prosecutors informed Judge Margaret Garnett they will not seek interlocutory review of her order removing death-eligible counts.
- Judge Garnett dismissed counts in late January after ruling stalking is not a crime of violence and thus cannot be a capital predicate.
- The federal trial timetable presently calls for jury selection on Sept. 8, 2026, and opening statements on Oct. 13, 2026.
- Luigi Mangione is accused of stalking and killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Midtown Manhattan in Dec. 2024; he has pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges.
- Mangione faces a state-court trial beginning June 8, 2026, where capital exposure remains governed by New York state law.
- Defense counsel argued the death-penalty eligibility was legally unsupported and politically motivated; prosecutors declined to appeal the judge’s legal ruling.
Background
The case centers on the Dec. 2024 killing of Brian Thompson, UnitedHealthcare’s chief executive, in Midtown Manhattan. Federal prosecutors had charged Mangione on counts that, if sustained, could have made him eligible for the death penalty under federal capital statutes that require a qualifying predicate violent offense. In late January 2026, Judge Margaret Garnett ruled that the stalking counts alleged against Mangione do not constitute a crime of violence under controlling law, and she dismissed the death-eligible counts from the federal indictment.
The ruling narrowed the federal indictment but left intact other federal charges related to the killing; state prosecutors have pursued parallel criminal charges under New York law. The defense had pressed for removal of capital exposure from the outset, arguing both legal insufficiency for a violent-predicate finding and that the decision to seek the death penalty improperly injected political considerations into charging choices. Prosecutors told the court they would decide by a deadline set by Garnett whether to seek an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal.
Main Event
On Feb. 27, 2026, federal prosecutors filed a letter with the court stating the Department of Justice will not pursue interlocutory review of Garnett’s order dismissing the death-eligible counts. That filing followed the late-January judicial opinion in which Garnett characterized parts of the legal question as “tortured and strange” but nonetheless concluded stalking is not a predicate crime of violence. The government therefore relinquished an immediate appellate path to restore capital exposure in the federal case.
With the interlocutory route closed, court calendars now point to a federal trial timeline this autumn. Garnett set jury selection for Sept. 8, 2026, and ordered opening statements to begin Oct. 13, 2026. Those dates assume no further pretrial rulings or procedural developments that could alter scheduling, and they reflect the judge’s intention to move forward on the remaining federal counts.
Separately, Mangione remains scheduled for a state-court trial starting June 8, 2026. State charges proceed under New York statutes, and state prosecutors can pursue penalties based on the state’s legal framework, which differs from the federal capital statute at issue in Garnett’s ruling. Mangione has entered not guilty pleas in both jurisdictions and remains in the custody of authorities as the two-track prosecution continues.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, the immediate consequence is narrow but consequential: the federal government will no longer seek the death penalty in the Manhattan federal case because one of the alleged predicate offenses was found inadequate under federal law. The decision does not resolve guilt or innocence on the remaining counts, but it removes the possibility of a federal capital sentencing phase, which would have substantially altered trial strategy for both sides and the resources devoted to the case.
Politically and institutionally, the case highlights tensions between federal charging choices and judicial gatekeeping. Defense attorneys framed the death-penalty filing as overreach and questioned motivations; judges, in turn, must apply statutory definitions to novel fact patterns. By declining interlocutory review, the Justice Department has effectively accepted the district court’s statutory interpretation for purposes of this prosecution, at least for now.
For victims’ families, corporate stakeholders, and public observers, the scheduling changes shift attention to trial mechanics and evidentiary presentations rather than capital sentencing. A fall federal trial without the death penalty means jurors will consider guilt and, if applicable, noncapital federal sentencing guidelines. The separate state trial starting in June remains a critical venue where different penalties and procedures may apply.
Comparison & Data
| Proceeding | Original capital exposure | Current status | Key dates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal case | Death eligible based on alleged predicate offenses | Death-eligible counts dismissed by Judge Garnett; no interlocutory appeal | Jury selection Sept. 8, 2026; opening Oct. 13, 2026 |
| State case (New York) | Subject to state penalties | Proceeding as scheduled under state law | Trial begins June 8, 2026 |
The table above summarizes the bifurcated prosecution paths and the practical effect of Garnett’s decision. While the federal government has reduced the scope of potential punishment by accepting the dismissal of death-eligible counts, the state calendar creates an overlapping timetable that defense and prosecution teams must reconcile for witness availability and discovery logistics.
Reactions & Quotes
“The Department of Justice will not seek interlocutory review of the Court’s Order.”
U.S. Attorney’s Office (letter to court)
The prosecutors’ brief statement formally notified the court that the Justice Department would not pursue an immediate appeal of the district judge’s ruling, closing that procedural avenue and allowing the federal case to proceed without capital exposure under the current indictment.
“Tortured and strange.”
Judge Margaret Garnett
Judge Garnett used that phrase in her late-January opinion to describe the legal questions raised by the government when assessing whether stalking can qualify as a predicate crime of violence under federal law. She nonetheless applied the statute and dismissed the death-eligible counts.
“Stalking fails to qualify as a crime of violence.”
Defense counsel (court filings)
Defense attorneys advanced that legal argument repeatedly, and the judge’s ruling aligned with the defense position on the specific statutory issue. The defense also alleged that seeking the death penalty was politically motivated, a claim not substantiated by the record presented in court.
Unconfirmed
- The defense’s assertion that the decision to seek the death penalty was politically motivated has not been demonstrated by independent evidence and remains an allegation.
- Whether the federal government might seek to refile different felony predicates or pursue alternative appellate strategies in other procedural postures is not confirmed.
- Future scheduling or evidentiary rulings that could alter the Sept. 8 and Oct. 13 dates are possible and have not been ruled out.
Bottom Line
The Justice Department’s decision not to appeal narrows the federal case against Luigi Mangione by removing capital exposure tied to the dismissed predicate counts, but it leaves the core prosecution and the question of culpability for Brian Thompson’s death to be decided at trial. The federal timeline now eyes fall 2026 for jury selection and opening statements, while a state trial remains slated for June, creating overlapping court calendars that will shape strategy and logistics.
Observers should distinguish between legal resolution of death-eligibility and ultimate guilt or innocence; Garnett’s ruling addressed a statutory threshold, not the factual merits of the killing charge. Key uncertainties remain, including potential pretrial rulings and any prosecutorial or defense moves that could affect scheduling or charges, so the case will continue to evolve through the coming months.
Sources
- ABC News (media report summarizing court filings and timelines)
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (official court site with docket information and orders)
- Associated Press (wire reporting and contemporaneous coverage)