Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 55

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

13 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

of unprotected speech, public-figure defamation is the best 
analog for true threats.  The reality is that recklessness is
not  grounded  in law, but  in  a  Goldilocks  judgment:  Reck-
lessness  is  not  too  much,  not  too  little,  but  instead  “just
right.” 

III 
Some may find Colorado’s statute harsh, and the Court’s
decision seems driven in no small part by the heavy ham-
mer of criminal punishment.  See ante, at 12; ante, at 14– 
15, 20–21 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.).  While an objective
test is “a familiar feature of civil liability in tort law,” the 
“ ‘conventional  requirement  for  criminal  conduct’ ” 
is 
“ ‘awareness  of  some  wrongdoing.’ ”  Elonis,  575  U. S.,  at 
737–738.  In  keeping  with  this  convention,  we  generally 
presume that “federal criminal statutes that are silent on
the  required  mental  state”  nonetheless  impose  the  “mens 
rea which is necessary to separate wrongful conduct from 
otherwise innocent conduct.”  Id., at 736 (internal quotation
marks omitted).  That is why we rejected an objective stand-
ard  for  the  federal  threat  prohibition,  18  U. S. C.  §875(c). 
575 U. S., at 737–739.  It is “the threatening nature of the 
communication” that “makes the conduct ‘wrongful’ ”; thus, 
the statute is best interpreted to require that the defendant
be aware of the impact of his speech.  Id., at 737. 

But this case is about the scope of the First Amendment,
not  the  interpretation  of  a  criminal  statute.    Accordingly, 
the Court’s holding affects the civil consequences for true 
threats just as much as it restricts criminal liability.  And 
the civil context underscores the danger of adopting a Sul-
livan-style buffer zone for true threats. 

Consider, for example, threat victims who seek restrain-
ing orders to protect themselves from their harassers.  See, 
e.g., United States v. Elonis, 841 F. 3d 589, 593 (CA3 2016) 
(defendant’s wife sought a restraining order after he wrote
on Facebook, “I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess,