Elonis v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States
575 U. S. ____ (2015) (2015)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A conviction for transmitting a threat in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of a defendant’s culpable mental state regarding the threatening nature of the communication; it is not sufficient to prove only that a reasonable person would have regarded the communication as a threat.

Facts:

After his wife left him, Anthony Douglas Elonis began posting graphically violent rap-style lyrics on his Facebook page under the pseudonym 'Tone Dougie'.
Following his termination from an amusement park, Elonis posted lyrics threatening his former employer and park patrons.
Elonis posted violent lyrics specifically directed at his estranged wife, including a detailed description of how to launch a mortar at her house, which caused her to obtain a protection-from-abuse order against him.
In response to the protective order, Elonis posted lyrics on Facebook questioning whether the order was thick enough to stop a bullet and referencing having enough explosives for law enforcement.
Elonis later posted about initiating 'the most heinous school shooting ever imagined' and wondering which local elementary school to target.
After being visited by FBI Agent Denise Stevens regarding his posts, Elonis posted another entry fantasizing about slitting her throat and detonating a bomb.
Elonis maintained that his posts were therapeutic, a form of artistic expression emulating rap artists like Eminem, and that he did not intend them as genuine threats.

Procedural Posture:

Anthony Elonis was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for violating 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
Elonis’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failing to allege he intended to threaten anyone was denied by the district court.
At trial, the district court denied Elonis’s request for a jury instruction requiring proof that he intended to communicate a true threat.
A jury convicted Elonis on four of five counts, based on jury instructions that defined a true threat as a statement a reasonable person would foresee being interpreted as threatening.
Elonis, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the government was the appellee.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding the statute only required intent to communicate words that a reasonable person would view as a threat.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted Elonis's petition for a writ of certiorari.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is it sufficient for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) that a reasonable person would regard the defendant's communication as a threat, regardless of the defendant's subjective state of mind?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Roberts

No. To secure a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), the prosecution must show that the defendant had some subjective mental state regarding the threatening nature of the communication. Federal criminal liability generally requires 'awareness of some wrongdoing,' and a negligence standard, which is based on what a 'reasonable person' would foresee, is inconsistent with this principle. While common in civil tort law, a negligence standard is disfavored in criminal law because it punishes conduct without proving the defendant possessed a culpable mind. The crucial element that separates innocent conduct from wrongful conduct under § 875(c) is the threatening nature of the communication, and therefore the defendant's mens rea must apply to that element. The Court reversed Elonis's conviction because the jury instruction was erroneous but declined to decide what the appropriate mental state should be (i.e., purpose, knowledge, or recklessness).

Dissenting - Justice Thomas

Yes. A general intent standard is sufficient for a conviction under § 875(c), which only requires that the defendant knew he transmitted a communication and understood the ordinary meaning of the words used. Historically, similar statutes criminalizing threatening or obscene speech did not require proof of specific intent to threaten or offend; the defendant's subjective belief about the legal status of their words was irrelevant. The majority's rejection of the well-established general intent standard creates legal uncertainty and arbitrarily provides threats with greater protection than other categories of unprotected speech, like obscenity or fighting words. The objective, 'reasonable person' standard correctly distinguishes true threats from protected speech.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Alito

No. The reasonable person standard is insufficient because criminal liability should require more than mere negligence. However, the Court erred by failing to establish what the correct mental state should be. The appropriate standard is recklessness, meaning the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the communication would be interpreted as a true threat. This standard correctly separates wrongful conduct from innocent conduct without requiring proof of a specific intent to threaten, which would unduly protect harmful speech. By refusing to resolve this issue, the majority opinion causes confusion for lower courts and fails its duty to 'say what the law is.'

Analysis:

This decision significantly altered the legal landscape for threat prosecutions by invalidating the objective 'reasonable person' standard used by nine federal circuits. The ruling establishes that a defendant's subjective state of mind is a necessary element of the crime, reinforcing the principle of mens rea in criminal law. However, by declining to define the required mental state (purpose, knowledge, or recklessness), the Court created substantial uncertainty, leaving lower courts to grapple with defining the new standard. This ambiguity complicates the prosecution of online threats and raises questions about how to balance First Amendment protections with the need to prevent violence and intimidation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Elonis v. United States (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"