In a case that’s raising eyebrows across religious and legal communities alike, a 49-year-old man from Oklahoma has pleaded guilty to bombing the headquarters of The Satanic Temple (TST) in Salem, Massachusetts — but notably, federal prosecutors are not charging the act as a hate crime, despite the temple’s legal recognition as a religious organization.

Sean Patrick Palmer admitted in federal court to throwing a homemade pipe bomb at TST’s headquarters in the early hours of April 8, 2024. Surveillance footage showed Palmer approaching the building wearing tactical gear and a face covering before lighting and tossing the device at the temple’s main entrance. The bomb — filled with smokeless gunpowder and covered in nails — failed to fully detonate, causing only minor damage to the exterior. But the intent was clear and the message, disturbingly personal.

Investigators found Palmer’s DNA on the device and also recovered a six-page handwritten note in a nearby flower bed. The letter reads like a religious manifesto, in which Palmer writes that “Elohim” sent him first with a peaceful warning to the Satanists, and now had commanded him to “smite Satan.” He claims he was instructed to ensure no one was killed, but makes multiple references to divine judgment and a desire to “destroy” the temple — and perhaps Salem itself:

DEAR SATANIST
ELOHIM SEND ME 7 MONTHS AGO TO GIVE YOU
PEACEFUL MESSAGE TO HOPE YOU REPENT. YOU SAY
NO, ELOHIM NOW SEND ME TO SMITE SATAN AND I
HAPPY TO OBEY. AND ELOHIM WANT ME TO CONTACT
YOU TO TELL YOU REPENT. TURN FROM SIN. ELOHIM
NO LIKE THIS PLACE AND PLAN TO DESTROY IT. MAYBE
SALEM TOO? ELOHIM SEND ME TO FIGHT CRYBABY
SATAN, BUT WANT ME TO MAKE HARD EFFORT SO NO
ONE DIES. I OBEY.

Despite the religious motivation clearly spelled out in Palmer’s own words, the Department of Justice chose not to pursue hate crime charges. Instead, Palmer was charged under federal statutes that prohibit the use of fire or explosives to damage buildings involved in interstate or foreign commerce — a law that carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison and a maximum of 20, plus supervised release and financial penalties. He’s scheduled to be sentenced on June 12, 2025.

This has prompted the question: why wasn’t this charged as a hate crime?

Under federal law, the relevant hate crime statute is 18 U.S. Code § 247, which criminalizes the intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of religious property because of the religious nature of that property — or any attempt to obstruct someone’s free exercise of religion through force or threat. Importantly, the law applies to “religious real property,” and explicitly protects all religions, including non-theistic ones like TST, which is formally recognized as a religious organization.

So in theory, Palmer’s attack would seem to fit squarely under this law: a violent act motivated by religious animus, directed at a religious organization’s headquarters, with a letter explicitly condemning their beliefs.

So why the omission?

Prosecutors rarely comment on their charging decisions beyond what’s in the public record, but there are a few possible explanations.

One possibility is strategic. The statute Palmer was charged under — using an explosive device against a building involved in interstate commerce — comes with a hefty sentence and a clear investigative trail, thanks to surveillance video, forensic evidence, and a full confession. Prosecutors may have opted to avoid a potentially more complex First Amendment battle by sticking with a straightforward, easier-to-prove statute.

Another potential reason is evidentiary nuance. While Palmer’s note strongly suggests religious motive, hate crime statutes often require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was committed specifically because of the victim’s religion. Defense attorneys might argue that Palmer’s motivations were delusional or personal rather than rooted in hate — especially given that he claimed he tried not to hurt anyone.

And then there’s the political element. Hate crime laws, particularly when applied to minority or controversial religions, can stir intense public reaction. Prosecutors may have calculated that convicting Palmer under the explosive device statute would ensure significant punishment without inviting a broader culture war in court.

Still, the omission hasn’t gone unnoticed. Critics, including religious liberty advocates, are asking whether the DOJ’s unwillingness to charge this as a hate crime reflects a bias — conscious or not — in how the law treats non-traditional faiths. TST, after all, is often the subject of public controversy for its advocacy work and challenges to Christian dominance in public institutions. Some wonder: if the building bombed had been a church or synagogue, would the hate crime charges have been on the table from the start?

The legal resolution may satisfy the requirement for justice, but the symbolic message remains mixed. The Satanic Temple was targeted for its beliefs, and while its attacker will likely serve time, the government’s decision not to label the act what it appears to be — religiously motivated violence — raises real concerns about how evenly hate crime laws are applied in the United States.

👇👇👇IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US👇👇👇