Anthony Douglas Elonis, Petitioner v. United States.

Summary

The Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. §875(c), which punishes transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure another person, cannot support a conviction premised solely on how a reasonable person would view the posts, because that standard amounts to negligence and criminal statutes silent on mens rea must be read to require the mental state necessary to separate wrongful from otherwise innocent conduct. Applying the presumption in favor of scienter element by element, the Court concluded that the mens rea must attach to the threatening nature of the communication—the crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct—and that §875(c) is satisfied by transmission for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat, while expressly reserving whether recklessness would suffice and not reaching the First Amendment questions. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion, joined by six Justices, and the Third Circuit's judgment was reversed and the case remanded. Justice Alito concurred in part and dissented in part, contending the Court should have held recklessness sufficient and remanded for the Third Circuit to apply that standard, and Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the traditional general-intent standard governed and the conviction should be affirmed.