Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 4

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–138 
_________________ 

BILLY RAYMOND COUNTERMAN, PETITIONER v. 
COLORADO 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 
COLORADO 

[June 27, 2023] 

JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 
True threats of violence are outside the bounds of First 
Amendment  protection  and  punishable  as  crimes.    Today
we consider a criminal conviction for communications fall-
ing  within  that  historically  unprotected  category.    The 
question  presented  is  whether  the  First  Amendment  still
requires proof that the defendant had some subjective un-
derstanding  of  the  threatening  nature  of  his  statements.
We hold that it does, but that a mental state of recklessness 
is sufficient.  The State must show that the defendant con-
sciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communi-
cations would be viewed as threatening violence.  The State 
need not prove any more demanding form of subjective in-
tent to threaten another. 

I 

From  2014  to  2016,  petitioner  Billy  Counterman  sent 
hundreds of Facebook messages to C. W., a local singer and 
musician.  The  two  had  never  met,  and  C.  W.  never  re-
sponded.  In fact, she repeatedly blocked Counterman.  But 
each time, he created a new Facebook account and resumed 
his  contacts.  Some  of  his  messages  were  utterly  prosaic