U.S. Department of Justice
Oce of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin
July 2021, NCJ 300952
Federal Hate Crime Prosecutions, 2005–19
Mark Motivans, Ph.D., BJS Statistician
F
rom October 1, 2004 to September 30,
2019, U.S. attorneys investigated a total
of 1,864 suspects in matters involving
violations of federal hate crime statutes
(gure 1).
1
Federal prosecutors referred 17% of
the suspects for prosecution. e number of
hate crime matters investigated fell 8%, from
647 during 2005-09 (129 per year) to 597 during
2015-19 (119 per year). During the most
recent 5-year period of 2015-19, nearly half
(48%) of the 597 suspects investigated for a
hate crime were referred to U.S. attorneys for
Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) violations.
is report uses data from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics’ Federal Justice Statistics Program to
describe criminal prosecutions over federal hate
crimes from 2005 to 2019. Data were collected
from the Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys’
Legal Information Oce Network System and
the Administrative Oce of the U.S. Courts.
1
e period represents scal years 2005 to 2019, each of
which begins October 1 and ends September 30. Data in
this report cover scal years, which are aggregated into
5-year groups to stabilize trend statistics.
Figure 1
Number of suspects in hate crime matters
investigated by U.S. attorneys, by lead charge,
scal years 2005–19
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2015–192010–142005–09
Number of suspects
Other
a
Fair housing
Damage to
religious property
Federally
protected activities
Hate Crime
Prevention Act
b
Note: Includes suspects in matters whose lead charge was
a hate crime under a substantive federal statute or program
category. See appendix table 1 for details.
a
Includes suspects in matters whose lead charge was not
covered by the four federal statutes for hate crimes but
was coded as a hate crime using the program category.
See Methodology.
b
Statute eective as of 2010.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the
Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys, Legal Information Oce
Network System, scal years 2005–19.
HIGHLIGHTS
During the 15-year period of 2005-19, 1,864 hate
crime suspects were referred for prosecution to
U.S. attorneys from federal judicial districts in all
50 states.
Hate crime matters investigated by
U.S. attorneys’ oces declined 8%, from
647 during 2005-09 to 597 during 2015-19.
The conviction rate for hate crimes increased
from 83% during 2005-09 to 94% during 2015-19.
About 85% of defendants convicted of a hate
crime were sentenced to prison, with an average
term of over 7.5 years.
Most (63%) hate crime matters involved
one suspect.
Insucient evidence was the most common
reason hate crime matters were declined.
More than 9 in 10 hate crime defendants
adjudicated in U.S. district court during 2005-19
were convicted.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 2
Denition of federal hate crimes
In this report, hate crimes are dened according to statute
information from federal justice agencies and include
crimes in which the perpetrator selected the victim based
on certain characteristics, such as race, color, religion, and
national origin.
2
There are four federal statutes specically
for hate crimes:
3
18 U.S.C. § 245. Federally protected activities—
Prohibits intentional interference, by force or threat of
force, with certain specied constitutional rights, where
the interference is motivated by race, color, religion,
or national origin. Activities protected under this law
include (1) enrollment in a public school or college,
(2) participation in programs administered or nanced
by any state, (3) federal and state employment and jury
service, (4) interstate travel by common carrier, and (5) use
of restaurants, lodging, gas stations, public entertainment
facilities, and other establishments serving the public.
18 U.S.C. § 247. Damage to religious property—
Prohibits damaging or destroying religious property
because of its religious nature. Prohibits intentionally
defacing, damaging, or destroying religious property
because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of
any individual associated with that property. Prohibits
interference with religious exercise, without regard
to race, if a connection with interstate commerce can
be shown.
18 U.S.C. § 249. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd,
Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009—Prohibits
willfully causing bodily injury, or attempting to cause
bodily injury with a dangerous weapon, when the crime
was committed because of (1) the actual or perceived
race, color, religion, or national origin of any person,
(2) the actual or perceived religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability
of any person and the crime aected interstate or foreign
commerce, or (3) any of these characteristics (actual or
perceived) if the crime occurred within federal special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
42 U.S.C. § 3631. Criminal interference with right
to fair housing—Prohibits forcible interference with
any person in selling, purchasing, renting, nancing,
occupying, or contracting for any dwelling due to that
person’s race, color, religion, gender, national origin,
disability, or family status.
In addition, a general conspiracy statute is used in hate
crimes prosecutions:
18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights—Prohibits
conspiracies to injure any person who is exercising rights
or privileges protected by the Constitution or laws of the
United States. The statute has been applied to a variety
of federal rights, including the right not to be deprived of
life without due process of the law, the right to vote in a
federal election, and the right to occupy housing free of
racially motivated violence.
2
e U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division denes
hate crimes as “acts of physical harm and specic criminal threats
motivated by animus based on race, color, national origin, religion,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” See U.S.
Department of Justice. (n.d.). Hate crimes prosecutions. Retrieved
June 2, 2021 from https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crimes-
prosecutions#hatecrimes
3
See Bosserman, B. K., & Miller, A. M. (2018). Prosecuting
federal hate crimes. U.S. Attorneys’ Bulletin, 66(1), 191-236.
https://www.justice.gov/usao/page/le/1030666/download;
and U.S. Department of Justice. (2017). Statutes enforced by
the Criminal Section. https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-
enforced-criminal-section
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 3
Investigating federal hate crimes
U.S. attorneys investigated more than 1,800 hate
crime suspects during 2005-19
During the 15-year period of 2005-19, U.S. attorneys
investigated 1,864 hate crime suspects (table 1). Of
the 597 hate crime suspects in matters opened by U.S.
attorneys during the 5-year period of 2015-19, 48% were
investigated for HCPA violations. In comparison, 22%
were investigated for other oenses, 12% for violations of
federally protected activities, 11% for damage to religious
property, and 7% for fair housing violations.
During 2005-19, nearly 1 in 3 (32%) hate crime suspects
were referred to U.S. attorneys in federal judicial districts
in ve states: California (11%) and Michigan, Texas,
Mississippi, and Ohio (about 5% each) (map 1). Suspects
from federal districts in all 50 states were referred
to U.S. attorneys for prosecution. Suspects were also
referred from the District of Columbia (12), Guam and
the Northern Mariana Islands (2), Puerto Rico (1), and
the U.S. Virgin Islands (1).
Table 1
Suspects in hate crime matters investigated by U.S. attorneys, by lead charge, scal years 2005–19
Lead charge
Total 2005–09 2010–14 2015–19
Percent change,
2005–09 to
2015–19
Percent change,
2010–14 to
2015–19Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total 1,864 100% 647 100% 620 100% 597 100% -7.7% -3.7%
Hate Crime Prevention Act
a
577 31.0 0 0.0 291 46.9 286 47.9 -- -1.7
Federally protected
activities 464 24.9 292 45.1 98 15.8 74 12.4 -74.7 -24.5
Damage to religious
property 226 12.1 83 12.8 75 12.1 68 11.4 -18.1 -9.3
Fair housing 222 11.9 120 18.5 62 10.0 40 6.7 -66.7 -35.5
Other
b
375 20.1 152 23.5 94 15.2 129 21.6 -15.1 37.2
Note: Includes suspects in matters whose lead charge was a hate crime under a substantive federal statute. The lead charge is the primary basis for referring
the matter to a U.S. attorney and is usually, but not always, the charge with the greatest possible sentence. See appendix table 1 for estimates for each year.
--Less than 0.5%.
a
Statute eective as of 2010.
b
Includes suspects in matters whose lead charge was not covered by the four federal statutes for hate crimes but was coded as a hate crime using the
program category. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys, Legal Information Oce Network System, scal
years 2005–19.
MaP 1
Number of hate crime suspects referred to U.S. attorneys,
by state and U.S. territory, scal years 2005–19
WA MT ND MN WI MI NY
ME
NH
RIMA
CTNJPA
VT
MD DE
DCVA
GA
FL
NCSCALMSLA
TX
HI
AK
OR
ID
NV
CA AZ
NM OK
WY SD
UT
CO
IA IL IN OH
NE MO KY WV
KS AR TN
PR
80 or more
14 or fewer
15–39
40–79
Note: A total of 1,864 suspects were referred to U.S. attorneys for a hate
crime from O
ctober 1, 2004 to September 30, 2019. Counts are not
shown for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands (2) and the U.S. Virgin
Islands (1). Counts do not take into account population dierences across
states and territories. See appendix table 3 for details.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Executive
Oce for U.S. Attorneys, Legal Information Oce Network System, scal
years 2005–19.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 4
e FBI has jurisdiction to investigate hate crimes.
Investigations are frequently conducted in collaboration
with state and local law enforcement agencies. e FBI
was the agency of referral for the majority (89%) of
federal hate crime matters investigated by U.S. attorneys
during 2005-19 (table 2). Federal and state task forces
accounted for 3% of hate crime referrals in this period.
Referrals from federal and state task forces increased
from 7 during 2005-09 to 39 during 2015-19. e Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which
provides expertise in rearms, arson, and explosives
investigations in its jurisdiction, accounted for 2% of
referrals during 2005-19.
Hate crime matters had an average of two suspects
Sixty-three percent of hate crime matters investigated by
U.S. attorneys during 2005-19 involved 1 suspect, while
37% involved multiple suspects (table 3). e number
of suspects ranged from 2 to 10 persons per matter (not
shown in table). Hate crime matters over fair housing
(47%) and HCPA (44%) violations were the most likely
to involve multiple suspects. Matters involving damage to
religious property (22%) were the least likely to involve
multiple suspects.
Table 2
Agencies that referred hate crime matters investigated by U.S. attorneys, scal years 2005–19
Total 2005–09 2010–14 2015–19
Referral agency Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total 1,864 100% 647 100% 620 100% 597 100%
U.S. Department of Justice 1,708 91.6% 614 94.9% 568 91.6% 526 88.1%
Federal Bureau of Investigation 1,655 88.8 590 91.2 547 88.2 518 86.8
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 32 1.7 13 2.0 15 2.4 4 0.7
Other justice agencies
a
21 1.1 11 1.7 6 1.0 4 0.7
Other federal agencies
b
94 5.0% 26 4.0% 36 5.8% 32 5.4%
Federal/state task forces 62 3.3% 7 1.1% 16 2.6% 39 6.5%
a
Includes the U.S. Marshals Service and Drug Enforcement Administration.
b
Includes the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and other agencies.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys, Legal Information Oce Network System, scal
years 2005–19.
Table 3
Suspects in hate crime matters investigated by U.S. attorneys, by suspects per matter, scal years 2005–19
Total Suspects per matter
Average number of
suspects per matterLead charge Suspects Matters One suspect Multiple suspects
Total 1,864 1,435 62.8% 37.2% 1.8
Federal hate crime 1,489 1,144 62.0% 38.0% 1.8
Hate Crime Prevention Act
a
577 424 56.3 43.7 1.9
Federally protected activities 464 364 65.3 34.7 1.7
Damage to religious property 226 197 78.3 21.7 1.4
Fair housing 222 159 53.2 46.8 1.8
Other
b
375 291 66.1% 33.9% 1.8
Note: Includes suspects in matters whose lead charge was a hate crime under a substantive federal statute or program category. The lead charge is the
primary basis for referring the matter to a U.S. attorney and is usually, but not always, the charge with the greatest possible sentence.
a
Statute eective as of 2010.
b
Includes suspects in matters whose lead charge was not covered by the four federal statutes for hate crimes but was coded as a hate crime using the
program category. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys, Legal Information Oce Network System, scal
years 2005–19.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 5
Prosecuting hate crimes
U.S. attorneys’ oces and the Civil Rights Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are jointly responsible
for enforcement of criminal civil-rights statutes. Several
federal statutes for hate crimes require certication from
the U.S. attorney general or designee before prosecution
may be undertaken.
4
No indictment, information, or
criminal complaint under these statutes may be issued
without such certication. U.S. attorneys’ oces and
attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division
consult with the Civil Rights Division in any case
involving an act of domestic terrorism in which the
underlying incident was motivated (or is suspected of
being motivated) in whole or in part by one of the biases
listed in any of the four federal statutes specically for
hate crimes.
5
4
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 245, 247, and 249.
5
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 245, 247, and 249 or 42 U.S.C. § 3631. See also U.S.
Department of Justice. (2018, March). Justice manual. https://www.
justice.gov/jm/jm-8-3000-enforcement-civil-rights-criminal-statutes
U.S. attorneys prosecuted 17% of suspects in matters
investigated for hate crimes during 2005-19
During 2005-19, U.S. attorneys concluded investigations
of 1,878 suspects in hate crime matters (table 4). To
conclude a matter, U.S. attorneys may le charges and
prosecute defendants in U.S. district court, le charges
and prosecute matters before U.S. magistrates, or
decline matters, resulting in no further action in U.S.
district court. U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute 82%
of suspects, prosecuted 17%, and disposed of 1% for
prosecution by U.S. magistrates. During 2005-19, U.S.
attorneys prosecuted hate crimes as part of other charges
most oen (22%), followed by hate crimes involving
damage to religious property (19%), the HCPA (18%),
and fair housing (16%).
Table 4
Suspects in hate crime matters concluded by U.S. attorneys, by outcome of investigation and lead charge, scal
years 2005–19
Percent of suspects—
Lead charge Total Prosecuted
Disposed for prosecution
by U.S. magistrate Not prosecuted
Total 1,878 16.6% 1.0% 82.4%
2005–09 665 15.5 1.1 83.5
2010–14 657 17.7 0.9 81.4
2015–19 556 16.6 1.1 82.4
Federal hate crime 1,446 14.9% 1.1% 84.0%
Hate Crime Prevention Act
a
440 17.9 1.8 80.2
Federally protected activities 527 10.3 1.0 88.8
Damage to religious property 229 18.8 0.4 80.8
Fair housing 250 15.6 0.8 83.6
Other
b
432 22.2% 0.7% 77.1%
a
Statute eective as of 2010.
b
Includes suspects in matters whose lead charge was not covered by the four federal statutes for hate crimes but was coded as a hate crime using the
program category. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys, Legal Information Oce Network System, scal
years 2005–19.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 6
Insucient evidence was the most common reason
hate crime matters were declined
During 2005-19, U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute
1,548 hate crime suspects. More than half (55%) were not
prosecuted because of insucient evidence—the most
common reason across all three 5-year periods (table 5).
e second most-common reason was the prioritization
of federal resources (15%), followed by the suspect being
subject to the authority of another jurisdiction (13%)
and the federal government lacking legal jurisdiction
to le charges (legally barred) (13%). Between 2005-09
and 2015-19, the share of declinations due to insucient
evidence rose from 49% to 63%, while the share due to
a policy of the DOJ or U.S. attorneys’ oces fell from
16% to 7%. Use of alternatives to prosecution increased
from 1% to 11% across those periods, while declinations
due to prosecution being legally barred decreased
from 19% to 4%.
Cases in U.S. district court
During 2005-19, 310 defendants were charged with a
hate crime in cases terminated in U.S. district court.
A total of 202 defendants (65%) were charged with a
hate crime as the most serious oense, and 108 (35%)
had a hate crime as a secondary oense (table 6).
Among the 108 defendants, the most serious oenses
charged included conspiracy against rights (16.5%),
explosives used in a felony (7.4%), explosives-related
oenses (3.5%), and rearms and violent oenses (5.2%)
(gure 2). Eighteen defendants were adjudicated with a
hate crime as a secondary oense during 2015-19, down
from 41 during 2005-09.
Table 5
Suspects in hate crime matters that U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute, by reason, scal years 2005–19
Total 2005–09 2010–14 2015–19
Reason not prosecuted Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total 1,548 100% 555 100% 535 100% 458 100%
Insucient evidence
a
829 55.1 267 49.2 278 54.2 284 63.3
Prioritization of federal resources
b
232 15.4 84 15.5 117 22.8 31 6.9
Referred to another jurisdiction
c
193 12.8 83 15.3 45 8.8 65 14.5
Legally barred
d
190 12.6 105 19.3 67 13.1 18 4.0
Alternative to federal prosecution
e
61 4.1 4 0.7 6 1.2 51 11.4
Note: A hate crime matter opened and under consideration for prosecution was declined when, prior to the ling of a complaint, information, or
indictment, a decision was made to discontinue investigating the matter. Reason for not prosecuting was missing for 29 suspects during 2005–19. Data
exclude 7 suspects whose matter was opened in error and 7 whose matter was declined due to the suspect being unavailable (e.g., due to death or
fugitive status).
a
The case could not be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
b
Declined due to an existing policy of the U.S. Department of Justice or U.S. attorneys’ oces.
c
Defendant was subject to the authority of another jurisdiction.
d
The federal government lacked jurisdiction to le charges.
e
A civil, administrative, or disciplinary alternative was used.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys, Legal Information Oce Network System, scal
years 2005–19.
Figure 2
Number of defendants charged with a hate crime in cases
terminated in U.S. district court, by most serious oense,
scal years 2005–19
Number of defendants
Other
b
Fair housing
Damage to religious
property
Federally protected
activities
Hate Crime
Prevention Act
a
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2015–192010–142005–09
Other
a
Explosives/firearms/
violence
b
Conspiracy
against rights
c
Fair housing
Damage to religious
property
Federally protected
activities
Hate Crime
Prevention Act
d
Note: Includes felony defendants, Class A misdemeanants in cases handled
by U.S. district judges or U.S. magistrates, and other misdemeanants in
cases handled by U.S. district judges. The most serious oense is the one
with the greatest statutory-maximum sentence at case termination, as
determined by court personnel. Defendants in more than one case are
counted separately.
a
Includes fraud and false statements and misprision (concealing
knowledge) of a felony.
b
Includes explosives used in a felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)); explosives-
related oenses (other subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 844); and rearms
oenses, carjacking, murder, kidnapping, simple assault, and threats.
c
18 U.S.C. § 241.
d
Statute eective as of 2010.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Administrative
Oce of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master File, scal years 2005–19.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 7
Table 6
Defendants charged with a hate crime in cases terminated in U.S. district court, by most serious oense, scal
years 2005–19
Total 2005–09 2010–14 2015–19
Most serious oense Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total 310 100% 101 100% 127 100% 82 100%
Hate crime 202 65.2% 60 59.4% 78 61.4% 64 78.0%
Hate Crime Prevention Act
a
62 20.0 0 0.0 28 22.0 34 41.5
Federally protected activities 63 20.3 34 33.7 21 16.5 8 9.8
Damage to religious property 39 12.6 12 11.9 13 10.2 14 17.1
Fair housing 38 12.3 14 13.9 16 12.6 8 9.8
Other crime with hate crime as
secondary oense 108 34.8% 41 40.6% 49 38.6% 18 22.0%
Conspiracy against rights
b
51 16.5 21 20.8 28 22.0 2 2.4
Explosives used in a felony
c
23 7.4 10 9.9 7 5.5 6 7.3
Explosives-related
d
11 3.5 1 1.0 4 3.1 6 7.3
Firearms/violence
e
16 5.2 7 6.9 7 5.5 2 2.4
Other
f
7 2.3 2 2.0 3 2.4 2 2.4
Note: Includes felony defendants, Class A misdemeanants in cases handled by U.S. district judges or U.S. magistrates, and other misdemeanants in cases
handled by U.S. district judges. The most serious oense is the one with the greatest statutory-maximum sentence at case termination, as determined
by court personnel. Defendants in more than one case are counted separately. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. See appendix table 2 for
estimates for each year.
a
Statute eective as of 2010.
b
18 U.S.C. § 241.
c
18 U.S.C. § 844(h).
d
Other subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 844.
e
Includes rearms oenses, carjacking, murder, kidnapping, simple assault, and threats.
f
Includes fraud and false statements and misprision (concealing knowledge) of a felony.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Administrative Oce of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master File, scal years 2005–19.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 8
More than 9 in 10 hate crime defendants adjudicated
in U.S. district court during 2005-19 were convicted
During 2005-19, a total of 284 (92%) of the
310 defendants in hate crime cases terminated in
U.S. district court were convicted (table 7). e
conviction rate for all hate crimes increased from
83% during 2005-09 to 94% during 2015-19.
Forty percent of the 284 hate crime convictions during
2005-19 occurred in federal judicial districts in six
states: New York (30), California (26), Texas (19),
Arkansas (15), Tennessee (13), and Pennsylvania (12)
(map 2). During this 15-year period, all but 10 states
saw at least one hate crime conviction. Defendants
were also convicted in Puerto Rico (6) and the District
of Columbia (2). ere were no convictions reported
for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands or for the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
Table 7
Defendants charged with a hate crime in cases terminated in U.S. district court, by disposition of case and most serious
oense, scal years 2005–19
Convicted Not convicted
Most serious oense Total Number Percent Number Percent
Total 310 284 91.6% 26 8.4%
2005–09 101 84 83.2 17 16.8
2010–14 127 123 96.9 4 3.1
2015–19 82 77 93.9 5 6.1
Hate crime 202 181 89.6% 21 10.4%
Hate Crime Prevention Act
a
62 56 90.3 6 9.7
Federally protected activities 63 52 82.5 11 17.5
Damage to religious property 39 36 92.3 3 7.7
Fair housing 38 37 97.4 1 2.6
Other crime with hate crime as secondary oense
b
108 103 95.4% 5 4.6%
Note: Includes felony defendants, Class A misdemeanants in cases handled by U.S. district judges or U.S. magistrates, and other misdemeanants in cases
handled by U.S. district judges. The most serious oense is the one with the greatest statutory-maximum sentence at case termination, as determined by
court personnel. Defendants in more than one case are counted separately. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.
a
Statute eective as of 2010.
b
Includes conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. § 241); explosives used in a felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)); explosives-related oenses (other subsections of
18 U.S.C. § 844); rearms oenses, carjacking, murder, kidnapping, simple assault, and threats; and fraud and false statements and misprision (concealing
knowledge) of a felony.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Administrative Oce of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master File, scal years 2005–19.
MaP 2
Number of hate crime defendants convicted in
U.S. district court, by state and U.S. territory, scal
years 2005–19
WA MT ND MN WI MI NY
ME
NH
RIMA
CTNJPA
VT
MD DE
DCVA
GA
FL
NCSCALMSLA
TX
HI
AK
OR
ID
NV
CA AZ
NM OK
WY SD
UT
CO
IA IL IN OH
NE MO KY WV
KS AR TN
PR
16 or more
4 or fewer
5–9
10–15
Note: A total of 284 defendants were convicted in U.S. district court
for a hate crime from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2019. Counts
are not shown for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands (0) and
the U.S. Virgin Islands (0). Counts do not take into account population
dierences across states and territories. See appendix table 3 for details.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Administrative
Oce of the U.S. Court, Criminal Master File, scal years 2005–19.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 9
Eighty-ve percent of defendants convicted of a hate
crime during 2005-19 received a prison sentence
(table 8). About 14% were sentenced to probation only,
and 1% received a suspended sentence. e likelihood
of receiving a prison sentence varied by the type of hate
crime at conviction. e likelihood of receiving a prison
sentence was greatest for defendants convicted of HCPA
violations (96%) and was the lowest for defendants
convicted of damage to religious property (63%). About
96% of the 56 defendants convicted of HCPA violations
and 78% of the 37 defendants convicted of a fair housing
violation received a sentence to prison. Defendants
convicted of hate crimes as secondary oenses had a 95%
imprisonment rate during the 15-year period.
Table 8
Defendants convicted of a hate crime in cases terminated in U.S. district court, by sentence imposed and most serious
oense, scal years 2005–19
Percent sentenced to—
Most serious oense Total Prison Probation only Suspended sentence
Total 284 84.8% 13.8% 1.4%
2005–09 84 83.3 15.5 1.2
2010–14 123 87.8 11.4 0.8
2015–19 77 81.6 15.8 2.6
Hate crime 181 78.9% 18.9% 2.2%
Hate Crime Prevention Act
a
56 96.4 1.8 1.8
Federally protected activities 52 71.2 26.9 1.9
Damage to religious property 36 62.9 31.4 5.7
Fair housing 37 78.4 21.6 ^
Other crime with hate crime as secondary oense
b
103 95.2% 4.8% ^
Note: Includes felony defendants, Class A misdemeanants in cases handled by U.S. district judges or U.S. magistrates, and other misdemeanants in cases
handled by U.S. district judges. The most serious oense is the one with the greatest statutory-maximum sentence at case termination, as determined
by court personnel. Defendants in more than one case are counted separately. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.
^No cases.
a
Statute eective as of 2010.
b
Includes conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. § 241); explosives used in a felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)); explosives-related oenses (other subsections of
18 U.S.C. § 844); rearms oenses, carjacking, murder, kidnapping, simple assault, and threats. Fraud and false statements and misprision of a felony do not
appear in this table (sentences to prison).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Administrative Oce of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master File, scal years 2005–19.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 10
Hate Crime Prevention Act charges received the
longest prison sentences and exceeded federally
protected activities charges in number
e average prison sentence in all hate crime
convictions doubled between 2005-09 and 2015-19,
from 62 to 125 months (table 9). HCPA violations
(126 months) received the highest average sentence
among hate crimes charged as the most serious
oense, followed by damage to religious property
(44 months), federally protected activities (39 months),
and fair housing (35 months). Hate crimes charged as a
secondary oense to a more serious oense received an
average prison sentence of 118 months during 2005-19.
Table 9
Defendants sentenced to prison for a hate crime in cases terminated in U.S. district court, by prison term and most
serious oense, scal years 2005–19
Prison sentence
Most serious oense Total Mean Median Minimum Maximum
Total 240 90 mos. 42 mos. 1 mos. 470 mos.
2005–09 70 62 33 1 470
2010–14 108 58 33 1 470
2015–19 62 125 88 6 470
Hate crime 142 72 mos. 33 mos. 1 mos. 470 mos.
Hate Crime Prevention Act
a
54 126 71 6 470
Federally protected activities 37 39 18 1 470
Damage to religious property 22 44 27 6 178
Fair housing 29 35 15 6 180
Other crime with hate crime as secondary oense
b
98 118 mos. 60 mos. 1 mos. 470 mos.
Note: Includes felony defendants, Class A misdemeanants in cases handled by U.S. district judges or U.S. magistrates, and other misdemeanants in cases
handled by U.S. district judges. The most serious oense is the one with the greatest statutory-maximum sentence at case termination, as determined by
court personnel. Defendants in more than one case are counted separately. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.
a
Statute eective as of 2010.
b
Includes conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. § 241); explosives used in a felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)); explosives-related oenses (other subsections of
18 U.S.C. § 844); rearms oenses, carjacking, murder, kidnapping, simple assault, and threats. Fraud and false statements and misprision of a felony do not
appear in this table (sentences to prison).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Administrative Oce of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master File, scal years 2005–19.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 11
Methodology
Data sources
e Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Federal Justice Statistics
Program (FJSP) collects, standardizes, and reports on
administrative data received from six federal justice
agencies: the U.S. Marshals Service, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys
(EOUSA), Administrative Oce of the U.S. Courts
(AOUSC), Federal Bureau of Prisons, and U.S.
Sentencing Commission. FJSP data are used to prepare
reports and support the FJSP web-based data analysis
tool. FJSP data are archived at the National Archive of
Criminal Justice Data.
Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys
e Legal Information Oce Network System
database contains information on the investigation and
prosecution of suspects in criminal matters received and
concluded and criminal cases led and terminated by
U.S. attorneys. Suspects may be counted more than once
in a scal year if they are involved in multiple matters
received and concluded during the period. A matter is
dened as a referral in which an attorney spends 1 hour
or more investigating. e lead charge is used to classify
the most serious oense at referral and is dened as the
substantive statute that is the primary basis of referral.
In addition, the program category measure is used to
identify suspects in matters whose lead charge was
not covered by the four federal statutes for hate crimes
but was coded as 05F (Civil Rights - Racial violence,
including hate crimes) or 05H (Civil Rights - Hate crimes
arising out of terrorist attacks on U.S.) in the Legal
Information Oce Network System.
Administrative Oce of the U.S. Courts
e Criminal Master File contains information about
the criminal proceedings against defendants whose
cases were led and terminated in U.S. district courts.
It includes information on cases involving felonies and
Class A and B misdemeanors handled by U.S. district
judges. A felony is classied as an oense for which the
maximum term of imprisonment is more than 1 year
in prison. Oenses classied as misdemeanors include
those for which the maximum term of imprisonment is
less than 1 year in prison. Class A misdemeanors include
oenses for which the maximum term of imprisonment
is less than 1 year but more than 6 months. Class B
misdemeanors include oenses for which the maximum
term of imprisonment is less than 6 months but more
than 30 days. Oenses are based on the most serious
oense charged, as determined by the probation
ocer responsible for interviewing the defendant. e
probation ocer classies the major oenses charged
into four-digit oense codes that are maintained and
updated by the AOUSC. For defendants charged with
more than one oense on an indictment, the probation
ocer chooses the oense carrying the most severe
penalty or, in the case of two or more charges carrying
the same penalty, the one with the highest oense
severity. e oense severity level is determined by
the AOUSC, which ranks oenses according to the
maximum sentence, type of crime, and maximum
ne amount.
Unit of analysis and reporting period
In the EOUSA data, the unit of count is a suspect in a
matter referred to a U.S. attorney. Suspects in more than
one matter are counted separately. In the AOUSC data,
the unit of count is a defendant in a case terminated in
U.S. district court. e reporting periods are scal years
2005 through 2019.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 12
aPPendix Table 1
Number of suspects in hate crime matters investigated by U.S. attorneys, by lead charge, scal years 2005–2019
Fiscal year Total
Hate Crime
Prevention Act
a
Federally
protected
activities
Damage to
religious property Fair housing Other
b
Total 1,864 577 464 226 222 375
2005 198 0 88 28 38 44
2006 83 0 41 17 9 16
2007 107 0 46 14 26 21
2008 133 0 62 11 19 41
2009 126 0 55 13 28 30
2010 145 37 38 25 19 26
2011 153 86 22 19 10 16
2012 127 70 10 14 12 21
2013 112 54 17 14 11 16
2014 83 44 11 3 10 15
2015 101 52 9 12 5 23
2016 110 42 19 17 7 25
2017 111 46 15 13 9 28
2018 114 55 18 7 9 25
2019 161 91 13 19 10 28
Note: Includes suspects in matters whose lead charge was a hate crime under a substantive federal statute or program category. The lead charge is the
primary basis for referring the matter to a U.S. attorney and is usually, but not always, the charge with the greatest possible sentence.
a
Statute eective as of 2010.
b
Includes suspects in matters whose lead charge was not covered by the four federal statutes for hate crimes but was coded as a hate crime using the
program category. See Methodology.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys, Legal Information Oce Network System, scal
years 2005–2019.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 13
aPPendix Table 2
Number of defendants charged with a hate crime in cases terminated in U.S. district court, by most serious oense,
scal years 2005–2019
Fiscal year Total
Hate crime
Other crime with hate crime as secondary oense
Hate Crime
Prevention Act
a
Federally
protected
activities
Damage to
religious
property Fair housing
Conspiracy
against rights
b
Explosives/
rearms/violence
c
Other
d
Total 310 62 63 39 38 51 50 7
2005 22 0 9 4 2 3 3 1
2006 15 0 5 5 2 1 2 0
2007 20 0 3 2 3 7 5 0
2008 22 0 7 1 3 4 7 0
2009 22 0 10 0 4 6 1 1
2010 28 0 7 1 1 11 7 1
2011 27 0 5 6 6 7 3 0
2012 17 1 3 1 3 4 5 0
2013 42 23 4 3 5 3 2 2
2014 13 4 2 2 1 3 1 0
2015 20 11 4 0 2 1 1 1
2016 11 4 1 5 0 0 1 0
2017 17 8 1 3 2 0 2 1
2018 18 9 1 4 2 0 2 0
2019 16 2 1 2 2 1 8 0
Note: Includes felony defendants, Class A misdemeanants in cases handled by U.S. district judges or U.S. magistrates, and other misdemeanants in cases
handled by U.S. district judges. The most serious oense is the one with the greatest statutory-maximum sentence at case termination, as determined by
court personnel. Defendants in more than one case are counted separately.
a
Statute eective as of 2010.
b
18 U.S.C. § 241.
c
Includes explosives used in a felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)); explosives-related oenses (other subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 844); and rearms oenses,
carjacking, murder, kidnapping, simple assault, and threats.
d
Includes fraud and false statements and misprision (concealing knowledge) of a felony.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Administrative Oce of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master File, scal years 2005–2019.
FEDERAL HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS, 200519 | JULY 2021 14
aPPendix Table 3
Number of hate crime suspects referred to U.S. attorneys and hate crime defendants convicted in U.S. district court, by
state and U.S. territory scal years 2005–19
State/territory
Suspects referred
to U.S. attorneys
Defendants convicted
in U.S. district court
Total 1,864 284
Alabama 35 4
Alaska 6 2
Arizona 35 0
Arkansas 31 15
California 200 26
Colorado 11 0
Connecticut 9 7
Delaware 4 2
District of Columbia 12 2
Florida 67 7
Georgia 42 2
Guam 2 0
Hawaii 10 0
Idaho 47 4
Illinois 56 4
Indiana 31 7
Iowa 12 8
Kansas 21 5
Kentucky 20 1
Louisiana 57 10
Maine 22 0
Maryland 6 1
Massachusetts 52 4
Michigan 102 9
Minnesota 8 2
Mississippi 97 11
Missouri 47 10
State/territory
Suspects referred
to U.S. attorneys
Defendants convicted
in U.S. district court
Montana 7 0
Nebraska 11 2
Nevada 12 1
New Hampshire 5 0
New Jersey 9 1
New Mexico 23 2
New York 67 30
North Carolina 48 4
North Dakota 4 2
Northern Mariana Islands 0 0
Ohio 90 9
Oklahoma 24 0
Oregon 56 11
Pennsylvania 72 12
Puerto Rico 1 6
Rhode Island 9 4
South Carolina 30 4
South Dakota 8 0
Tennessee 48 13
Texas 99 19
U.S. Virgin Islands 1 0
Utah 41 11
Vermont 2 0
Virginia 59 3
Washington 42 4
West Virginia 34 0
Wisconsin 19 2
Wyoming 1 1
,
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the Executive Oce for U.S. Attorneys, Legal Information Oce Network System; and from the
Administrative Oce of the U.S. Courts, Criminal Master File, scal years 2005–19.
e Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the
principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal
victimization, criminal oenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime,
and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable
statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports
improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and
participates with national and international organizations to develop and
recommend national standards for justice statistics. Doris J. James is the
acting director.
is report was written by Mark Motivans. George E. Browne veried
the report.
David Fialko and Edrienne Su edited the report. Carrie Epps-Carey
produced the report.
July 2021, NCJ 300952
Oce of Justice Programs
Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice
www.ojp.gov
