Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Watts v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1969 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentThreats Against the PresidentFirst Amendmenttrue threatpolitical hyperbolethreat statuteconditional statement

Facts

At a public rally on the Washington Monument grounds, petitioner joined a discussion group about police brutality. During a political exchange, after mentioning his draft classification and upcoming physical, he said that if they ever made him carry a rifle, "the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.," and added that they were not going to make him kill his black brothers. Defense counsel emphasized that the statement was made during political debate, was expressly conditional on induction into the Armed Forces, which petitioner said would never occur, and that both petitioner and the crowd laughed afterward. On that statement, petitioner was convicted of knowingly and willfully threatening the President.

Issue

Whether petitioner's statement at the rally constituted a punishable threat under 18 U.S.C. § 871, or instead was protected speech under the First Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether the statement was a true threat rather than political hyperbole.

Rule

Although 18 U.S.C. § 871 is constitutional on its face, because it criminalizes a form of pure speech it must be interpreted with the First Amendment in mind. The government must prove a true threat, and speech that, taken in context, is merely political hyperbole does not fall within the statute.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a city council protest in Seattle about federal immigration policy, Nolan Perez tells a small crowd, "If the government ever drags me into one of its armed patrols, the first official I'd put in my sights is the President." Several people nearby laugh and continue arguing about policy.

If Nolan is prosecuted under a federal statute criminalizing threats against the President, which is the strongest argument for acquittal?

Explanation. The majority held that the statute is facially constitutional, but because it criminalizes pure speech it must be interpreted with the First Amendment in mind. The government must prove a true threat, and speech that in context is merely political hyperbole is not covered. A statement made in political debate, expressly conditioned on a future event, and followed by laughter closely indicates protected hyperbole, not a true threat.