A US federal judge has dismissed a federal murder charge against Luigi Mangione, eliminating the possibility of the death penalty in the high-profile case arising from the killing of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson.
In a ruling issued Friday in Manhattan, US District Judge Margaret Garnett said Supreme Court precedent required dismissal of the federal murder count because it was legally incompatible with two federal stalking charges that remain pending.
While the decision represents a significant setback for prosecutors, Mangione could still face life imprisonment if convicted on the remaining charges. Mangione also faces nine counts in a case brought by New York state prosecutors, including second-degree murder and various weapons charges.
He has pleaded not guilty in both cases.
For the death penalty to apply, prosecutors were required to show that Mangione killed Mr Thompson while committing another "crime of violence".
Judge Garnett said that stalking did not fit that definition, citing case law and legal precedents.
The judge openly acknowledged what she described as the “apparent absurdity” of the result, noting that few would dispute that the alleged conduct was violent criminal behavior. Nonetheless, she said the court was bound to apply Supreme Court rulings as written, even if the outcome appeared counterintuitive.
Federal authorities had alleged that Mangione targeted Thompson after traveling across state lines, framing the case as both premeditated and symbolic. Prosecutors argued the killing was motivated, at least in part, by anger over health insurance practices and the broader US healthcare system.
The 27-year-old Mangione has pleaded not guilty to all federal charges related to Thompson’s death in December 2024 and has remained in custody since his arrest. Jury selection in the federal case had been scheduled to begin in September.
Thompson had been a prominent executive within UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest private health insurer, and his killing prompted heightened security concerns across the sector.
The case is likely to remain a focal point not only for criminal law observers but also for the insurance industry, which is increasingly attentive to the personal risks facing its executives in a polarized political environment.
