NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FEDERAL LAWYERS
What is 18 USC 249
|Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. Our criminal defense law firm is second generation, managed by Todd Spodek – who has many, many years of experience handling federal cases. Our team has over 40 years of combined experience, and we’ve handled cases that made national headlines – Anna Delvey’s trial that became a Netflix series, the Ghislaine Maxwell juror misconduct case, stalking allegations involving Alec Baldwin. If you’re facing federal hate crime charges under 18 USC 249, you need attorneys who understand how the government prosecutes these cases.
18 USC 249 is the federal hate crime statute. It’s part of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed in 2009. The law makes it a federal crime to cause bodily injury – or attempt to cause bodily injury with a dangerous weapon – because of someone’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. This statute gave federal prosecutors much broader authority than they had before 2009.
Before this law existed, federal hate crime prosecutions were limited. The older statutes only covered race, color, religion, and national origin – and only in specific circumstances, like when someone was voting or attending school. The 2009 Act changed everything. Now federal prosecutors can charge hate crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.
The Two-Tier Structure of 18 USC 249
The statute has two subsections that work differently. Subsection (a)(1) covers crimes motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin. No additional jurisdictional hook required – if the crime happened because of these characteristics, federal prosecutors can charge it. Subsection (a)(2) covers crimes motivated by gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. For these cases, prosecutors must prove the crime affected interstate commerce.
That interstate commerce requirement isn’t hard to meet. Using a phone made in another state, wearing clothes manufactured elsewhere – these satisfy the requirement. The distinction matters for defense strategy. In (a)(2) cases, challenging the interstate commerce element becomes one potential avenue.
Penalties and Real Consequences
The baseline penalty is up to 10 years in federal prison. That’s for causing bodily injury motivated by bias. If the crime involved kidnapping, attempted murder, or sexual abuse – or if death resulted – the maximum penalty jumps to life imprisonment.
Look at actual 2025 cases. Rui Jiang planned to shoot up a church in Virginia because of the congregants’ religious beliefs. He was arrested before he could carry out the attack. Federal prosecutors charged him under 18 USC 249 for attempting to obstruct people from freely exercising their religion. After a four-day trial, the jury convicted him. The judge sentenced him to 25 years in federal prison.
Another case from 2025 – a California man attacked an Asian American woman while she was walking to work. Racially motivated assault. He pleaded guilty to federal hate crime charges and received 51 months. Four years and change. That’s the reality of federal sentencing for hate crimes. The government doesn’t bring these charges unless they can prove bias motivation, and when they do, the sentences reflect the seriousness.
What the Government Must Prove
The government must prove two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the defendant caused or attempted to cause bodily injury. Second, that the defendant acted because of the victim’s actual or perceived protected characteristic. That second element – proving bias motivation – is where these cases get won or lost.
Prosecutors use various types of evidence to prove bias motivation. Statements the defendant made before, during, or after the attack. Social media posts showing animus toward a protected group. Witness testimony about the defendant’s attitudes. The circumstances of the attack.
Sometimes the evidence is ambiguous. An assault occurs, victim and defendant are different races, but the actual reason for the confrontation had nothing to do with race. The government might charge it as a hate crime anyway if there’s any evidence of bias. Defendants in these situations need lawyers who can challenge the government’s narrative.
Federal vs State Prosecution
Most violent crimes get prosecuted at the state level. Murder, assault, battery – these are traditionally state crimes. The statute requires the Attorney General or their designee to certify in writing that federal prosecution serves the public interest. This certification typically happens when the state lacks jurisdiction, when the state requested federal involvement, or when federal prosecution is necessary to protect civil rights.
Federal prosecution brings different advantages and challenges. Federal investigators – FBI, ATF, others – have resources state agencies don’t. Federal sentencing guidelines apply differently than state sentencing schemes. Federal defendants face the Sentencing Guidelines, acceptance of responsibility calculations, criminal history categories.
Federal court is a different world. Federal judges come from a different culture than state judges. The procedural rules differ. If you’re charged under 18 USC 249, you need lawyers who handle federal cases regularly.
Defense Strategies in 18 USC 249 Cases
Fighting these charges requires understanding how prosecutors build bias motivation cases. The government needs evidence that bias was the reason for the crime – not just present, but the motivating factor.
Sometimes the facts are disputed. Self-defense claims, mistaken identity, whether the defendant actually caused the injury. These are factual disputes that go to a jury unless resolved through plea negotiations.
At Spodek Law Group, we’ve handled federal violent crime cases for years. Many of the cases we’re known for – cases others said were unwinnable – involved challenging the government’s version of events. The government brings significant resources to these prosecutions. But that doesn’t mean the case can’t be defended.
Some defendants face overwhelming evidence of bias motivation. Social media posts using slurs. Statements expressing hatred of a particular group. Video evidence showing the attack. In these situations, the focus shifts to mitigation – arguing for a lower sentence, presenting mental health evidence, demonstrating acceptance of responsibility.
Federal sentencing operates according to the Guidelines, which are advisory after United States v. Booker. Hate crime cases involve high offense levels because of the bias motivation enhancement.
If You’re Facing 18 USC 249 Charges
Federal hate crime investigations often begin long before charges get filed. FBI agents interview witnesses, collect social media evidence, obtain search warrants for phones and computers.
If you learn you’re under investigation, talk to a lawyer immediately. Don’t give statements to law enforcement. Don’t try to explain what happened. Don’t consent to searches.
Our criminal defense attorneys at Spodek Law Group understand federal procedure, federal sentencing, and how to fight serious felony charges. We’ve been featured in major media outlets – New York Post, Newsweek, Bloomberg – because we handle cases that attract attention. Todd Spodek represented Anna Delvey in the trial that became a Netflix series.
Federal hate crime cases require aggressive defense. The stakes are high – years or decades in federal prison. The government has vast resources. You need lawyers who can match that firepower and who understand how federal prosecutions work.
We’re available 24/7 to discuss your case. We handle cases throughout New York and across the country. If you’re under investigation or have been charged with violating 18 USC 249, contact Spodek Law Group. Federal charges are serious. They require serious lawyers.