Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 19

2 

COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

Instead, this Court’s precedent, along with historical stat-
utes and cases, reflect a commonsense understanding that 
threatening someone is an intentional act.  As to what in-
tent  is  needed,  “[t]raditionally,  one  intends  certain  conse-
quences  when  he  desires  that  his  acts  cause  those  conse-
quences or knows that those consequences are substantially 
certain to result from his acts.”  Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 
137,  150  (1987)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  This 
does not require showing that an individual intends to carry
through with the threat.  But it does require showing that
an individual desires to threaten or is substantially certain
that her statements will be understood as threatening. 

Today,  unfortunately,  the  Court  unnecessarily  departs
from this traditional understanding.  That is not to say that 
I disagree with the Court on everything.  Far from it.  I join
the Court’s conclusion that some subjective mens rea is re-
quired in true-threats cases.  I also agree that in this par-
ticular  case,  where  petitioner  was  prosecuted  for  stalking 
that involved threatening statements, a mens rea of reck-
lessness  is  amply  sufficient.    Where  I  part  ways  with  the
Court is that I would not reach the distinct and more com-
plex question whether a mens rea of recklessness is suffi-
cient for true-threats prosecutions generally.  Further, re-
quiring  nothing  more  than  a  mens  rea  of  recklessness  is 
inconsistent with precedent, history, and the commitment
to  even  harmful  speech  that  the  First  Amendment  en-
shrines.  I therefore respectfully concur only in part and in 
the judgment. 

I 

As  an  initial  matter,  I  do  not  believe  that  this  Court 
should reach the question whether recklessness is sufficient 
for true-threats prosecutions.  A key conceptual distinction 
is helpful for explaining why.  On the one hand, there are 
statements that are objectively threatening.  In some cases, 
such statements can be punished because they fall into the