[2] In controversy were the purported threats of violent rap lyrics written by Anthony Douglas Elonis and posted to Facebook under a pseudonym.

A week later, Elonis posted about local law enforcement and a kindergarten class, which caught the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Then, he wrote a post on Facebook about one of the agents who visited him: ...Took all the strength I had not to turn the bitch ghost Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat

The actions led to Elonis's indictment by a grand jury on five counts of threats to park employees and visitors, local law enforcement, his estranged wife, an FBI agent, and a kindergarten class that had been relayed through interstate communication.

At the district court, Elonis moved to dismiss the indictment for failing to allege that he had intended to threaten anyone.

He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court based on lack of any attempt to show intent to threaten and on First Amendment rights.

The majority opinion, written by Roberts, did not rule on First Amendment matters or on the question of whether recklessness was sufficient mens rea to show intent.

Importantly, the mens rea issue had been preserved for review, since Elonis had raised that objection at every stage of the previous proceedings.

The court disagreed, holding that the absence of the language in §875(c) was because the section was intended to have a broader scope than threats relating to extortion.

The opinion drew on many Supreme Court cases holding that in criminal law, mens rea was required though it had not been mentioned explicitly in statute.

He further opined that recklessness was sufficient to show a crime under that provision on the basis that going further would amount to amending the statute, rather than interpreting it.

The Third Circuit should also have the opportunity to consider whether the conviction could be upheld on harmless error grounds.Alito also addressed the First Amendment question, elided by the majority opinion.

Thomas used precedent, notably from the states and 18th-century England based on other but similar and, arguably, influencing legislation to support his "general intent" claim.