Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

political advocacy a hair’s-breadth away from incitement—is not pre-
sent here.  For true threats, recklessness strikes the right balance, of-
fering “enough ‘breathing space’ for protected speech,” without sacri-
ficing too many of the benefits of enforcing laws against true threats. 
Elonis, 575 U. S., at 748.  Pp. 10–14. 

(c) The State prosecuted Counterman in accordance with an objec-
tive  standard  and  did  not  have  to  show  any  awareness  on  Counter-
man’s part of his statements’ threatening character.  That is a viola-
tion of the First Amendment.  P. 14. 

497 P. 3d 1039, vacated and remanded. 

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed 
an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which 
GORSUCH, J., joined as to Parts I, II, III–A, and III–B.  THOMAS, J., filed 
a dissenting opinion.  BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which 
THOMAS, J., joined.