Holy shitfuck, Batman: Defendant charged in Bloomington mosque bombing challenges hate-crime law as unconstitutional

A federal magistrate judge managing the prosecution of a man suspected of firebombing a Bloomington mosque in 2017 is weighing a constitutional challenge to the laws under which the suspect was charged.

Reynaldo Aligada Jr. and Shannon Elkins initiated the challenge in pretrial filings last month when they argued that four of the five federal charges against their client, Michael Hari, should be dismissed.

The crux of their argument was that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution when it passed and modified laws that make it a federal crime to damage real property because of the religious nature of that property, or to forcibly obstruct the free exercise of religion.

Two other charges — conspiracy to commit federal felonies with fire or explosives, and carrying or using a destructive device related to crimes of violence — also should be dropped, Hari’s attorneys argue, because those alleged crimes are predicated on the statutes that they contend are unconstitutional.

Federal attorneys replied early this month that laws under which Hari was charged are without merit and have successfully withstood challenges in other jurisdictions.