In the Supreme Court of the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 13-983 In the Supreme Court of the United States ANTHONY D. ELONIS, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER RONALD H. LEVINE JOHN P. ELWOOD ABRAHAM J. REIN Counsel of Record POST & SCHELL, P.C. RALPH C. MAYRELL Four Penn Ctr., 13th Fl. DMITRY SLAVIN 1600 John F. Kennedy VINSON & ELKINS LLP Blvd. 2200 Pennsylvania Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19103 NW, Suite 500 West (215) 587-1000 Washington, DC 20037 (202) 639-6500 [email protected] [Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover] DANIEL R. ORTIZ CONOR MCEVILY UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA VINSON & ELKINS LLP SCHOOL OF LAW 1001 Fannin Street, Suite SUPREME COURT 2500 LITIGATION CLINIC Houston, TX 77002 580 Massie Road (713) 758-2222 Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 924-3127 QUESTIONS PRESENTED It is a federal crime to “transmit[] in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing * * * any threat to injure the person of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The questions presented are: 1. Whether, as a matter of statutory interpreta- tion, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten. 2. Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten; or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................V OPINIONS BELOW ....................................................1 JURISDICTION ..........................................................1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ....................................2 STATEMENT...............................................................2 A. Factual Background ...............................................5 B. Procedural Background........................................16 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................19 ARGUMENT..............................................................22 I. THE TEXT OF SECTION 875(c) REQUIRES PROOF OF SUBJECTIVE INTENT TO THREATEN..........................................................22 A. The Plain Meaning Of Section 875(c) Requires Proof Of Specific Intent To Threaten ...............................................................22 B. Legislative History And Early Case Law Confirm The Need For Specific Intent ................24 C. The Third Circuit’s Negligence Standard Conflicts With Fundamental Principles Of Statutory Interpretation......................................26 II. WITHOUT A SUBJECTIVE INTENT MENS REA, SECTION 875(c) CRIMINALIZES NEGLIGENT SPEECH AND VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT ................................34 (II) III Page A. History And Tradition Counsel Against Imposing Criminal Liability For Negligent Speech...................................................................36 1. Threat Prosecutions Traditionally Have Required Proof Of Intent To Threaten Or Other Specific Intent.............36 2. This Court Has Repeatedly Required Proof Of Prohibited Intent Before Allowing Speech To Be Sanctioned ...........39 B. Black Recognized A First Amendment Subjective Intent Requirement For Statutes Criminalizing Threats..........................................43 C. The Negligence Standard Impermissibly Chills Protected Speech .......................................45 1. The Negligence Standard Is Indeterminate And Unpredictable ............46 2. The Negligence Standard’s Focus On Third Party Reactions Institutionalizes Discrimination Against Minority Viewpoints..................................................48 3. The Negligence Standard Criminalizes Misunderstandings, Which Are Increasingly Likely Using New Communications Media.............................49 D. Absent Intent To Threaten, Petitioner’s Posts Were Protected Speech.........................................52 E. The Negligence Standard Does Not Survive Exacting Scrutiny.................................................57 IV Page 1. Section 875(c)’s Negligence Standard Is Not The Least Restrictive Means Of Addressing True Threats...........................58 2. This Court Has Repeatedly Refused To Sacrifice Speech For Speculative Improvements In Law Enforcement ..........60 CONCLUSION ..........................................................61 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page(s) Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).....................35 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) ..............................................................58, 60 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam)............................................................39, 40 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973)...........61 Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (1957)...................58 Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255 (2000)............34 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) .............55, 60 Consol. Rail. Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) ....................................................................32 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (1985)..............................................42 Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. B.H., 134 S. Ct. 1515 (2014) ....................................................................13 Forsyth Cnty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) .....................................................48 Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) ...............41 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) ..............................................................41, 42 Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) (per curi- am) ........................................................................39 Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing As- socs., Inc., 538 U.S. 600 (2003) ................21, 42, 46 Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) ........................................................27, 28, 34 (V) VI Cases—Continued: Page(s) Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) ........................................................26, 28, 30 NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963)...........4, 41, 46 NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) .................................................35, 40, 46 N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ................................................................3, 41 Norris v. State, 95 Ind. 73 (1884)..............................38 Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/ Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc)..............32 Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513 (1994) .....................................................29 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 872 (1997)........3, 45, 48 Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) ...............59 Riley v. Nat’l Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1988) .............................................................48 Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35 (1975) ......................................................3, 4, 31, 46 Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) ....................................................................23 Seeber v. United States, 329 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1964) ...............................................................25, 26 Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)............13, 60 Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) ..................................................26, 27, 28, 30 State v. Benedict, 11 Vt. 236 (1839)..............20, 21, 37 VII Cases—Continued: Page(s) State v. Skinner, No. A-57/58-12 (N.J. Aug. 4, 2014) .....................................................................55 Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) .....................34 Thompson v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., No. 2:09-cv- 01375-PMP-VCF, 2012 WL 2342928 (D. Nev. June 30, 2012)..............................................................6 United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012) ............................................................passim United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980)............30 United States v. Bozeman, 495 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1974) ........................................................25, 26 United States v. Cassel, 408 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2005) .....................................................................45 United States v. Dutsch, 357 F.2d 331 (4th Cir. 1966) ...............................................................20, 25 United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) .......58 United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486, 1490 (1st Cir. 1997).......................................................51 United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39 (1994).....32 United States v. Jeffries, 692 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 59 (2013)......passim United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1976) .....................................................................25 United States v. Kosma, 951 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 1991) ...........................................................3, 17, 19 United States v. LeVison, 418 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1969) ...............................................................25, 26 VIII Cases—Continued: Page(s) United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) .............................................................59 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) ............................................................passim United States v. Twine,