A defendant was charged with one count of transmitting an interstate threat to injure or kill another person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) based on 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 directed, 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 in fall 2024, contacted the United States Marshals Service for the Middle District of Florida regarding a threat linked 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 meant to say "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.

In its reasoning, the court referenced precedent indicating that mere wishes or hopes for harm do not fall within the scope of § 875(c) unless contextual evidence suggests intent to commit the act. For example, the Third Circuit noted that a reasonable jury could find a wish to harm could be a threat if accompanied by indications of intent to act. Conversely, other cases cited by the court affirmed dismissal where statements were hypothetical, conditional, or lacked specific threats to individuals.

This ruling highlights the legal nuances in distinguishing protected speech from punishable threats, especially in online contexts.

Sources