A defendant was charged with one count of transmitting an interstate threat to injure or kill another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for posting an online comment stating, "I wish someone would in alive him." The indictment did not specify where the comment was posted, to whom it was communicated, or identify the referenced individual.

The individual referred to as "him" was identified in a search warrant affidavit as United States District Court Judge John L. Badalamenti. On June 22, 2025, Judge Badalamenti, an adjunct professor at the University of Florida who taught a seminar on originalism, contacted the United States Marshals Service (USMS) for the Middle District of Florida regarding threats linked to reactions to a June 21, 2025, New York Times article titled "A White Nationalist Wrote a Law School Paper Promoting Racist Views, It won Him an Award."

The government argued that the phrase "in alive him" was a typographical error intended to mean "unalive him," implying a threat to kill. However, the court dismissed the indictment, concluding as a matter of law that the post did not constitute a true threat under the statute.

Legal precedent cited includes a 1945 case noting that a statement suggesting someone "should or ought to kill the President" without indication of intent to act does not amount to a threat. Similarly, a 2011 case affirmed dismissal of an indictment where a statement was hypothetical and conditional, not threatening bodily harm to any individual.

The Third Circuit reasoned that while a wish could constitute a threat in the right context, a reasonable jury could find that the defendant was prepared to commit the act himself only if additional threatening context was present, which was not established here.

This case highlights the legal complexities in distinguishing protected speech from punishable threats, especially in ambiguous online communications.

Sources