In its only opinion on the scope of the law, the New York Court of Appeals limited the scope of the law and overturned a terrorism conviction where the underlying specified offense was a murder committed as part of a rivalry between two gangs. After noting that the Anti-Terrorism Act was enacted in the wake of 9/11 and that the legislative findings mentioned six other instances of terrorism necessitating the law: the Oklahoma City bombing, foreign embassy bombings, Pan-Am Flight 103, 1997 shooting at the Empire State Building, 1994 murder of Ari Halberstam on the Brooklyn Bridge, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Court found that gang violence was not within the intended scope of the law:If we were to apply a broad definition to "intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population," the People could invoke the specter of "terrorism" every time a Blood assaults a Crip or an organized crime family orchestrates the murder of a rival syndicate's soldier. But the concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act.Though gang violence falls outside of the scope of the Act, widespread violence is not necessary for a crime to be a crime of terrorism. The 1994 Brooklyn Bridge attack, which resulted in one killed and three wounded is listed in the legislative findings of the Anti-Terrorism Act as a terrorist attack. In 2012, a trial court sustained a terrorism indictment against a defendant accused of plotting to “shoot those attending religious services and to detonate at least one grenade in one synagogue;” the defendant later pleaded guilty. And in 2019 James Jackson pleaded guilty to first degree murder as a crime of terrorism for the 2017 killing Timothy Caughman in an attempt to start a race war.