United States v. Anthony Elonis, 841 F.3d 589

Anthony Elonis posted repeatedly violent, graphic Facebook messages in 2010 after his wife left him and after workplace harassment complaints led to his firing; posts targeted his ex‑wife, coworkers, police/FBI, and threatened school shootings.
His ex‑wife obtained a Protection From Abuse order; coworkers and park security reported threats to police and the FBI.
Elonis was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for transmitting threats in interstate commerce and convicted on four counts (acquitted on one count). He was sentenced to 44 months.
At trial the jury was instructed under an objective reasonable‑person standard for “true threats”; Elonis testified the posts were lyrics and meant for entertainment.
On appeal the Supreme Court reversed, holding the objective (negligence) instruction was legally insufficient and that the jury must be instructed to find purpose or knowledge (it left open recklessness). The case was remanded.
On remand the Third Circuit held the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the convictions, explaining § 875(c) requires both a subjective element (purpose or knowledge) and an objective element (reasonable person would view as a threat).

Issue	Elonis' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Proper mens rea under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)	Jury must find subjective intent (purpose) or at least not convict on mere negligence; Supreme Court required a subjective component	Objective reasonable‑person standard sufficed to identify a "true threat"	Supreme Court: negligence insufficient; statute requires subjective element (purpose or knowledge). Third Circuit: §875(c) has both subjective (purpose or knowledge) and objective components.
Whether the district court’s erroneous objective instruction was harmless	Error was not harmless because jury never made the required subjective finding; his testimony denied threatening intent	Evidence overwhelmingly shows Elonis knew or intended his posts to be threatening, so verdict would be the same	Held harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed because record conclusively established knowledge or purpose for each count.
Whether recklessness satisfies § 875(c)	Elonis and some argued recklessness insufficient; others urged it might suffice	Government urged conviction could be sustained under knowledge or recklessness (varied)	Court declined to decide; left the recklessness question unresolved.

Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (Supreme Court reversed due to insufficient mens rea instruction and required a subjective element)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (true‑threat analysis requires context and may implicate intent)
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (distinguishing hyperbole from true threats)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless‑error standard: convict may stand if error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (standard for harmless error review of constitutional jury‑instruction errors)
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986) (harmless‑error review when defendant contests mens rea)
Whitney v. Horn, 280 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2002) (mens rea instructional error can be harmless where record conclusively establishes intent)