A federal judge in Manhattan has sentenced former Taliban commander Haji Najibullah to 42 years in prison, marking one of the most notable terrorism sentencings of the week and reinforcing the Justice Department’s long-running commitment to pursuing legacy wartime prosecutions years after the underlying conduct.

The sentence, imposed June 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, followed Najibullah’s conviction for hostage-taking and providing material support for terrorism resulting in death.

A New Albany, Ohio man has pleaded guilty in federal court to threatening more than 30 public officials, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio. The defendant, Lidderdale, entered the plea before Chief U.S. District Judge Sarah D. Morrison in a case that reflects a broader federal enforcement priority: treating threats against officeholders and public institutions as serious criminal conduct, not protected political rhetoric.

While the public facts released so far are limited, the scale of the conduct stands out.

The Supreme Court’s Thursday activity put a spotlight on a question with outsized consequences for federal sentencing practice: how much discretion district courts have to identify “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). While compassionate-release disputes once occupied a relatively narrow corner of criminal practice, they have become a major source of post-conviction litigation since the First Step Act expanded access to the process.

The legal significance is straightforward but substantial.