Connection lost
Server error
ELONIS v. U.S. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man posted violent rap lyrics online about his ex-wife and others. The Supreme Court held that to convict him for making a threat, prosecutors must prove he had a culpable mental state, not just that a reasonable person would find the posts threatening.
Legal Significance: The Court affirmed the fundamental principle that criminal liability requires a culpable mental state (mens rea), holding that a negligence standard is insufficient for a conviction under the federal threat statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
ELONIS v. U.S. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
After his wife left him, Anthony Elonis posted self-styled rap lyrics on Facebook containing graphically violent language and imagery directed at his estranged wife, former co-workers, law enforcement, and a kindergarten class. He interspersed these posts with disclaimers that they were fictitious and a form of therapy. His wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order, stating she was in fear for her life. Elonis was subsequently charged under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat. At trial, Elonis requested a jury instruction requiring the government to prove he intended to communicate a true threat. The District Court denied the request, instead instructing the jury that Elonis could be convicted if a reasonable person would foresee that his statements would be interpreted as a threat, regardless of his subjective intent. The Third Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute only requires the intent to communicate words that a reasonable person would view as a threat. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the required mental state under § 875(c).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a conviction for transmitting a threat in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) require proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten, or is it sufficient to show that a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat?
Yes. The Court reversed the conviction, holding that the jury instruction applying Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ulla
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a conviction for transmitting a threat in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) require proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten, or is it sufficient to show that a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the bedrock *mens rea* requirement in federal criminal law, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitatio
Legal Rule
A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of a culpable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate ve
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on statutory interpretation and the foundational principles of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ex
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A conviction under the federal threat statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c),