In response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on New York City’s infrastructure, and the Oklahoma City bombing, there was a U.S. proliferation in Federal counter-terrorism measures. This article examined the three areas of State counter-terrorist legislation enacted in the last decade. First, States imitated Federal efforts to combat terrorism in the field of financial support for terrorist groups. Second, the Federal Government, in the past has focused legislation on halting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Today, State efforts involve a variety of approaches, such as alterations to emergency management structure, increases in criminal penalties, and strictures against the making of hoaxes. The third and final type of legislation makes terrorism that seek to overthrow the U.S. Government or that of the States illegal. The article continues with an examination of the legal and policy implications and considerations of State statutes to combat terrorism. With regards to legal implications, two legal concerns were considered: the Federal preemption and the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly. In the area of practical politics and policy, an important analytical basis for scrutinizing the State laws was needed for the Federal Government to be able to enforce a unified counter-terrorist policy and to speak with one voice. The U.S. effort to combat terrorism is seen as needing to be coherent, flexible, and legitimate. Notes