| Counterman v. Colorado | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 19, 2023 Decided June 27, 2023 | |
| Full case name | Billy Raymond Counterman, Petitioner v. Colorado |
| Docket no. | 22-138 |
| Citations | 600 U.S. 66 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence.[1] | |
| Holding | |
| The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements' threatening nature, but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than recklessness[Note 1] | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Jackson |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor (in part and in judgment), joined by Gorsuch (Parts I, II, III-A and III-B) |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Dissent | Barrett, joined by Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the line between true threats of violence punishable as crimes and free speech protected by the First Amendment. The states and lower courts were divided over how to define the line. By a 7-2 majority, the court decided that statements are not free speech if the defendant recklessly disregarded a substantial risk that their statements would be viewed as threatening violence.
Beginning in 2010, Billy Counterman sent thousands of messages to singer-songwriter Coles Whalen that foreboded her death and followed her activities. Counterman was convicted of stalking in Colorado, with his conviction left intact by the Colorado Court of Appeals and Colorado Supreme Court. Under Colorado law, statements are not free speech if a reasonable person would view the statements as threatening, with no need to prove that the speaker had subjective intent to threaten. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that there must be some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of the statements, but that a mental state of recklessness is sufficient, with no need for any more demanding form of subjective intent. Although the decision left Counterman vulnerable to conviction on retrial, some criticized it for declaring that stalking was protected by the First Amendment.[2]
- ^ "PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved July 7, 2023.
- ^ Mary Anne Franks (July 6, 2023). "The Supreme Court Just Legalized Stalking". slate.com. Retrieved July 6, 2023.
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).