Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf
Page Number: 6

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

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.  In line with Colorado law, the trial 
court assessed the true-threat issue using an “objective ‘rea-
sonable person’ standard.”  People v. Cross, 127 P. 3d 71, 76 
(Colo. 2006).  Under that standard, the State had to show 
that a reasonable person would have viewed the Facebook
messages  as  threatening.  By  contrast,  the  State  had  no
need to prove that Counterman had any kind of “subjective 
intent to threaten” C. W.  In re R. D., 464 P. 3d 717, 731, n. 
21 (Colo. 2020).  The court decided, after “consider[ing] the 
totality  of  the  circumstances,”  that  Counterman’s  state-
ments  “r[o]se  to  the  level  of  a  true  threat.”    497  P.  3d,  at 
1045.  Because  that  was  so,  the  court  ruled,  the  First 
Amendment posed no bar to prosecution.  The court accord-
ingly  sent  the  case  to  the  jury,  which  found  Counterman
guilty as charged.

The  Colorado  Court  of  Appeals  affirmed.  Counterman 
had urged the court to hold that the First Amendment re-
quired the State to show that he was aware of the threat-
ening nature of his statements.  Relying on its precedent, 
the court turned the request down: It “decline[d] today to 
say that a speaker’s subjective intent to threaten is neces-
sary” under the First Amendment to procure a conviction
for  threatening  communications. 
Id.,  at  1046  (quoting 
R. D., 464 P. 3d, at 731, n. 21).  Using the established objec-
tive standard, the court then approved the trial court’s rul-
ing that Counterman’s messages were “true threats” and so
were not protected by the First Amendment.  497 P. 3d, at 
1050.  The Colorado Supreme Court denied review. 

Courts  are  divided  about  (1)  whether  the  First  Amend-
ment requires proof of a defendant’s subjective mindset in 

—————— 
its case solely on Counterman’s “[r]epeated[ ] . . . communication[s]” with
C. W.  Ibid.