Watts v. United States
394 U.S. 705 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute criminalizing threats against the President must be interpreted in light of the First Amendment, distinguishing a "true threat" from constitutionally protected political hyperbole. The context of the statement, its conditional nature, and the reaction of the listeners must be considered to determine if it constitutes a true threat.
Facts:
- On August 27, 1966, a public rally was held on the Washington Monument grounds.
- Petitioner Watts, an 18-year-old, joined a small discussion group focused on police brutality.
- Reacting to a comment about needing more education, Watts stated that he had received his 1-A draft classification and was scheduled for a physical.
- Watts declared he would not report for his physical.
- He then stated, 'If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.' (President Lyndon B. Johnson).
- After making the statement, both Watts and others in the group laughed.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Watts was prosecuted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- A jury convicted Watts of knowingly and willfully threatening the President in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871.
- At trial, petitioner's counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial judge denied.
- Watts, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a two-to-one decision.
- Watts then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States 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:
Does a conditional statement made during a political protest, which elicits laughter from the audience, constitute a 'true threat' under 18 U.S.C. § 871, or is it constitutionally protected political speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The statement was not a true threat but was a form of crude political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment. A statute that criminalizes pure speech must be interpreted with the First Amendment in mind, requiring a clear distinction between a true threat and protected speech. The court's reasoning emphasized the context of the statement—a political protest—where speech is often 'vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp,' as established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Furthermore, the statement's expressly conditional nature and the audience's reaction of laughter indicate it was not a genuine threat but rather a 'very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.'
Concurring - Justice Douglas
No. The prosecution of Watts's statement is reminiscent of historical laws, such as the English Statute of Treasons and the American Alien and Sedition Acts, which were used to suppress political dissent rather than punish genuine threats. Such laws punish 'constructive treason' based on words alone, a practice outlawed by the Constitution. This statute has been historically applied in times of intolerance to punish disloyalty and offensive political criticism, which is a dangerous suppression of speech that should not be permitted in a free society.
Dissenting - Justice Fortas
The dissent does not directly answer the issue but argues that the Court should not have decided the case without a full hearing. The difficult constitutional questions presented by the case should not be adjudicated summarily. The fact that the case may seem trivial due to its specific facts and the petitioner's suspended sentence should be grounds for denying certiorari, not for issuing a summary reversal on the merits without the benefit of oral argument.
Analysis:
This per curiam opinion established the foundational 'true threat' doctrine under First Amendment jurisprudence. It created a crucial distinction between genuine threats of violence, which the government can prohibit, and political hyperbole, which is protected speech. The decision mandates a contextual analysis for threat statutes, forcing courts to look beyond the literal words to the surrounding circumstances, including the setting, the conditional nature of the statement, and audience reaction. This prevents threat statutes from being used to unconstitutionally chill or punish vehement political dissent.
Unlock the full brief for Watts v. United States