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) 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 linked to a June 22, 2025, report by United States District Court Judge John L. Badalamenti. 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 related 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 article discussed a student's paper arguing that the Constitution's framers intended "We the People" to refer exclusively to white people.

In court, the defendant argued the comment was not a true threat, asserting that merely wishing harm falls outside the statute's scope. However, the Third Circuit noted that a wish could constitute a threat in the right context and that a reasonable jury might find the defendant was prepared to commit the act himself.

Despite this, the court dismissed the indictment, concluding the phrase "in alive him" was a typographical error intended to mean "unalive him," or kill him, but that the post did not meet the legal standard for a true threat. The court referenced precedent where statements lacking clear intent to commit harm were not punishable threats, including a 1945 case noting that suggesting someone "should or ought to kill the President" without intent does not amount to a threat, and a 2011 case where hypothetical statements about becoming "homicidal" were not true threats.

The case highlights the legal complexities in distinguishing protected speech from punishable threats under U.S. law.

Sources