## Facts

- After his wife left him, Anthony Elonis posted graphically violent, rap-style statements on Facebook about his estranged wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and law enforcement.
- Several posts included disclaimers asserting the statements were fictitious or “not a threat” and were protected by the First Amendment.
- Elonis’s wife and others who knew him interpreted the posts as threats; his employer fired him, and his wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order.
- After the employer contacted the FBI, agents monitored Elonis’s Facebook page.
- Elonis was charged with five counts under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for transmitting in interstate commerce communications containing threats to injure another person.
- At trial, Elonis contended the posts were artistic or therapeutic rap lyrics, not intended as threats.
- The jury was instructed that it was enough if a reasonable person would foresee the statements would be interpreted as threats; the court refused Elonis’s request for an instruction requiring proof that he intended to communicate a “true threat.”
- Elonis was convicted on four counts and sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, applying an objective reasonable-person standard and rejecting a requirement of intent to threaten.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) permits conviction based on negligence—i.e., that a reasonable person would view the communication as a threat—or requires a more culpable mens rea as to the threatening nature of the communication.
2. Whether the First Amendment requires proof of a subjective intent to threaten for “true threat” prosecutions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that the negligence-based instruction used below (reasonable-person foreseeability) is insufficient to support a conviction under § 875(c).
- The Court interpreted § 875(c) to require that the defendant act with a culpable mental state regarding the threatening character of the communication.
- The Court stated § 875(c) is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that it will be viewed as a threat.
- The Court declined to decide whether recklessness would suffice and did not reach the First Amendment question.

## Legal Principles

- When a federal criminal statute is silent on mens rea, courts generally presume Congress intended a scienter requirement rather than criminal liability based on negligence.
- The required mental state must apply to the element that makes the conduct criminal; for § 875(c), that element is the threatening nature of the communication.
- A conviction under § 875(c) cannot rest solely on an objective negligence standard (what a reasonable person would perceive) without proof of a culpable mental state regarding the threat.
- The decision resolves a statutory mens rea question and leaves open both the minimum mens rea (including whether recklessness is enough) and any independent First Amendment limits.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 875(c) does not allow conviction based only on a reasonable-person negligence standard; the government must prove the defendant had a culpable mental state concerning whether the communication would be understood as a threat, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015)