Threatening speech
Turner Lee Calloway v. Washington
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Turner Lee Calloway asks the Supreme Court to review whether Washington’s harassment law violates the First Amendment by criminalizing threatening speech without specifying what a speaker must intend or know.
- What's at stake
- Calloway’s challenge to Washington’s harassment law remains unresolved; the Supreme Court has not decided whether the law violates the First Amendment on the grounds he raises.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court has distributed his petition for a conference but has not agreed to hear the case.
Calloway’s petition relies on the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Counterman v. Colorado and challenges Washington’s law on free-speech grounds.
Question presented
Whether the State of Washington’s harassment statute, Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.20(1)(a)(i), which criminalizes threatening speech without defining a culpable mental state, is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by this Court in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023).
What happens next
The petition was distributed for the Court’s Dec. 4, 2026 conference, but that is not a promised decision date. The next step is whether the Court agrees to hear the case.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
Show 6 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Brief added: Petition
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
New document added
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Sources
Primary materials from the Court and the parties. Grounded in docket records and cited sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.