Intent behind threats
Anthony Douglas Elonis v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the Third Circuit’s ruling because negligence alone could not support Elonis’s conviction, then sent the case back without deciding exactly what level of intent the law requires.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · June 1, 2015 · Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
- What it’s about
- Anthony Elonis challenged his federal conviction under a law against transmitting threats after the Third Circuit upheld it using a jury instruction that required only negligence.
- Who it affects
- The Court ruled that a conviction under this law cannot rest on a jury instruction requiring only negligence about whether a message conveyed a threat.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned the Third Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), deciding that negligence alone could not support a conviction but not specifying what level of intent the law requires.
Section 875(c) is the federal law that bars transmitting threats.
Question presented
Does a conviction of threatening another person under 18 U. S. C. §875(c) require proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Third Circuit’s instruction, requiring only negligence with respect to the communication of a threat, is not sufficient to support a conviction under Section 875(c). 321, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court decided that an instruction requiring only negligence about whether a message conveyed a threat could not support a conviction under Section 875(c). It did not identify the level of intent the law requires.
The vote
From the opinions
“The Court’s disposition of this case is certain to cause confusion and serious problems.”
What's next
The Third Circuit will reconsider Elonis’s case under the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Court did not specify what level of intent Section 875(c) requires.
Each side's argument
- Anthony Elonis
- Elonis argued that the law requires proof that he intended to threaten someone.
- United States
- The United States argued that prosecutors needed to prove only that Elonis knowingly sent the message and understood what the words meant in context.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Elonis
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.