October Term 2014 · Docket 13-983
Does a speaker intend a threat if a reasonable person would interpret the words that way?
The dispute centers on whether criminal intent requires proof of the speaker's actual state of mind or if a reasonable person's interpretation suffices.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Elonis argued the First Amendment protects speech unless the speaker truly intends to threaten.
The government argued a reasonable person's interpretation proves the speaker intended a threat.
justice_question
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 38-18 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 38-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 36-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 36-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 52-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 52-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-32 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 44-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 44-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 24-42 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 24-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 36-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 42-1 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 42-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 34-42 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 34-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-36 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-22 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-22
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Elonis argues the First Amendment protects speech unless the speaker truly intends to threaten. The government argues a reasonable person's interpretation proves intent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 38-18 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 38-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 36-40
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 1, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 20-22
What each side wants
Elonis wants the conviction overturned because he did not truly intend to threaten.
The government wants the conviction upheld because a reasonable person would view the words as threats.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 38-18 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 38-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 36-40
What each side says
Elonis argues the First Amendment requires proof of the speaker's actual intent to threaten.
The government argues a reasonable person's interpretation of the words establishes the necessary intent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 38-18 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 38-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 36-40
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked how a reasonable person's interpretation differs from the defendant's intent.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if online anger posts count as therapeutic rather than threatening.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 36-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 36-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 52-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 52-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-32 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 44-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 44-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 24-42 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 24-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 42-1 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 42-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 34-42 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 34-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-36 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-22 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-22
Why it matters
This case defines the legal standard for prosecuting online speech as threats. It determines when words become criminal acts. It balances free expression against public safety. It sets a precedent for interpreting intent in digital communications.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 38-18 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 38-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 36-40
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 36-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 36-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 52-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 52-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-32 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 44-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 44-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 24-42 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 24-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 42-1 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 42-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 38-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 38-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 34-42 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 34-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 20-22 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 20-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-36 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 48-22 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 48-22
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 38-18 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 38-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 36-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 38-18 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 38-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-34 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 36-40 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 36-40
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.