Counterman v. Colorado
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Counterman v. Colorado and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Counterman v. Colorado.
The Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of Billy Counterman, who was charged under a Colorado statute for sending threatening messages. The Court determined that the First Amendment requires the State to prove a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of the statements, with recklessness being the appropriate standard. This decision vacated and remanded the previous ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Counterman v. Colorado.
The Court held that the State must prove the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements' threatening nature, requiring no more than recklessness.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Counterman v. Colorado. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Counterman v. Colorado
The case primarily deals with the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the requirements for prosecuting true threats.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Counterman moved to dismiss the charge on First Amendment grounds, arguing that his messages were not 'true threats' and therefore could not form the basis of a criminal prosecution.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Counterman v. Colorado
The Court's decision involves the requirement of a subjective mental state, which relates to the procedural fairness in determining liability for speech.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements' threatening nature.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Counterman v. Colorado
The decision touches on substantive due process by addressing the balance between protecting individuals from threats and ensuring free speech is not unduly chilled.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A subjective standard is still required for true threats, lest prosecutions chill too much protected, non-threatening expression.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Counterman v. Colorado that support the summary and concepts above.
The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements' threatening nature.
A recklessness standard—i. e., a showing that a person 'consciously disregard[ed] a substantial [and unjustifable] risk that [his] conduct will cause harm to another.'
That is a violation of the First Amendment.
