Elonis v. United States
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Elonis v. United States'', 575 U.S. 723 (2015), was a
United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
case concerning whether conviction of threatening another person over interstate lines (under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)) requires proof of subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening. In controversy were the purported threats of violent
rap Rapping (also rhyming, spitting, emceeing or MCing) is a musical form of vocal delivery that incorporates "rhyme, rhythmic speech, and street vernacular". It is performed or chanted, usually over a backing beat or musical accompaniment. The ...
lyrics written by Anthony Douglas Elonis and posted to Facebook under a pseudonym. The
ACLU The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1920 "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States". T ...
filed an
amicus brief An ''amicus curiae'' (; ) is an individual or organization who is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. The decision on ...
in support of the petitioner. It was the first time the Court has heard a case considering
true threat A true threat is a threatening communication that can be prosecuted under the law. It is distinct from a threat that is made in jest. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that true threats are not protected under the U.S. Constitution based on three jus ...
s and the limits of speech on
social media Social media are interactive media technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks. While challenges to the definition of ''social medi ...
.


Background

Elonis was in the process of
divorce Divorce (also known as dissolution of marriage) is the process of terminating a marriage or marital union. Divorce usually entails the canceling or reorganizing of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage, thus dissolving the ...
and made a number of public
Facebook Facebook is an online social media and social networking service owned by American company Meta Platforms. Founded in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg with fellow Harvard College students and roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin M ...
posts. He "posted the script of a sketch" by ''
The Whitest Kids U' Know ''The Whitest Kids U' Know'' (''WKUK'') is an American sketch comedy show starring a comedy troupe of the same name. The group consisted of Trevor Moore, Zach Cregger, Sam Brown, Timmy Williams and Darren Trumeter, though other actors occasiona ...
'', which originally referenced saying "I want To kill the President of the United States" and replaced the president with his wife: Elonis ended the post with this statement: "Art is about pushing limits. I'm willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you?" A week later, Elonis posted about local law enforcement and a kindergarten class, which caught the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Then, he wrote a post on Facebook about one of the agents who visited him: He concluded: The actions led to Elonis's indictment by a grand jury on five counts of threats to park employees and visitors, local law enforcement, his estranged wife, an FBI agent, and a kindergarten class that had been relayed through interstate communication. At the district court, he moved to dismiss the indictment for failing to allege that he had intended to threaten anyone. His motion was denied. He requested a jury instruction that "the government must prove that he intended to communicate a true threat." which was also denied. He was convicted on the last four of the five counts. He was sentenced to 44 months in prison and three years on supervised release. He appealed unsuccessfully to the circuit court of appeals, renewing his challenge to the jury instructions. He appealed to the Supreme Court based on lack of any attempt to show intent to threaten and on First Amendment rights.


Decision

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court reversed Elonis's conviction in an 8–1 decision. Chief Justice
John G. Roberts John Glover Roberts Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is an American lawyer and jurist who has served as the 17th chief justice of the United States since 2005. Roberts has authored the majority opinion in several landmark cases, including ''Nati ...
wrote for a seven-justice majority,
Samuel Alito Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. ( ; born April 1, 1950) is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served ...
authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and
Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to succeed Thurgood Marshall and has served since 199 ...
authored a dissenting opinion. The finding of the circuit court was reversed and the matter remanded.


Majority opinion

The majority opinion, written by Roberts, did not rule on First Amendment matters or on the question of whether recklessness was sufficient ''
mens rea In criminal law, (; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action (or lack of action) would cause a crime to be committed. It is considered a necessary element ...
'' to show intent. It ruled that ''mens rea'' was required to prove the commission of a crime under §875(c). Importantly, the ''mens rea'' issue had been preserved for review, since Elonis had raised that objection at every stage of the previous proceedings. The government contended that the presence of the words "intent to extort" in §875(b) and §875(d) implied that the absence in §875(c) was constructive. The court disagreed, holding that the absence of the language in §875(c) was because the section was intended to have a broader scope than threats relating to extortion. The opinion drew on many Supreme Court cases that held that in criminal law, ''mens rea'' was required though it had not been mentioned explicitly in statute. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Elonis.


Alito's concurrence

Samuel Alito Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. ( ; born April 1, 1950) is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served ...
, concurring in part and dissenting in part, opined that while agreeing that ''mens rea'' was required and specifically that showing negligence was not sufficient, the court should have ruled on the question of recklessness. He further opined that recklessness was sufficient to show a crime under that provision on the basis that going further would amount to amending the statute, rather than interpreting it. Since Elonis explicitly argued that recklessness was not sufficient, Alito said: Alito also addressed the First Amendment question, elided by the majority opinion. He held that "lyrics in songs that are performed for an audience or sold in recorded form are unlikely to be interpreted as a real threat to a real person.... Statements on social media that are pointedly directed at their victims, by contrast, are much more likely to be taken seriously."


Thomas's dissent

Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to succeed Thurgood Marshall and has served since 199 ...
, dissenting, wrote against discarding the "general intent" standard without replacing it with a clearer standard. Thomas argued that "there is no historical practice requiring more than general intent when a statute regulates speech." Thomas cited ''Rosen'', arguing that general intent was sufficient in this case. However, the majority opinion offers refutation in that ''Rosen'' turned on ignorance of the law: knowledge as to whether material was legally obscene, not on whether it was ''intended'' to be obscene. He also supported the government's claim that the presence of "intent to extort" language in the adjacent §875(b) and did not address the majority's reasoning on that language. Thomas used precedent, notably from the states and 18th-century England based on other but similar and, arguably, influencing legislation to support his "general intent" claim. Thomas also drew a parallel with general intent in
tort A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable ...
. While he sought to address the First Amendment issues, he never strayed far from "general intent."


Aftermath

Following the ruling, Elonis' conviction was overturned. However, the Court of Appeals subsequently “conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Elonis would have been convicted if the jury had been properly instructed” and his conviction was reinstated.


See also

*
Rule of lenity The rule of lenity, also called the rule of strict construction, is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, a court must apply the law in the manner that is most favorable to the de ...


Footnotes


External links

* {{US1stAmendment, speech United States Free Speech Clause case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court * 2015 in United States case law