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) due to 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 the identity of the referenced "him."

The "him" was identified in a search warrant affidavit as United States District Court Judge John L. Badalamenti, who on June 22, 2025, contacted the United States Marshals Service (USMS) for the Middle District of Florida after receiving a threat 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."

Judge Badalamenti, an adjunct professor at the University of Florida who taught a seminar on originalism in fall 2024, was connected to the article’s subject—a student paper arguing the Constitution’s framers intended "We the People" to refer exclusively to white people.

The USMS and Judge Badalamenti suspected the phrase "in alive him" was a typographical error for "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 was cited, including 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 deemed 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 distinguish between merely wishing harm and being prepared to commit the act. In this case, the court found the comment insufficient to meet the threshold of a punishable threat.

This ruling underscores the complexities involved in interpreting online speech and the boundaries of protected expression under the First Amendment.

Sources