Threats — whether spoken, written, texted, emailed, or communicated through social media — are a form of communication that exists at the boundary between protected First Amendment expression and serious criminal conduct. The question of whether it is illegal to threaten someone in the United States has a clear foundational answer: yes, making a genuine threat against another person is illegal, and depending on the severity of the threat, the means by which it is communicated, and the target of the threat, criminal consequences can range from misdemeanor charges to serious federal felonies. Understanding where the legal line falls between protected expression and criminal threatening requires examining federal law, state criminal statutes, and the constitutional framework that governs this area.
What Makes a Threat Criminal: The True Threats Doctrine
The legal analysis of whether a particular statement constitutes a criminal threat begins with the constitutional concept of true threats — a category of speech that the Supreme Court has held falls outside the First Amendment’s protection. In Virginia v. Black (2003) and subsequently in Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional standard for criminal threat prosecutions, holding that the government may only criminally punish statements that constitute true threats — serious expressions of an intent to commit unlawful violence against a specific person or group. The Court clarified in Counterman that prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendant was at least recklessly indifferent to whether their statement would be perceived as a threat — that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their communication would be interpreted as threatening.
This constitutional framework means that hyperbolic, clearly figurative, or obviously non-serious statements — even if offensive or disturbing — do not automatically constitute criminal threats. Context matters enormously. A statement made in obvious jest to a close friend differs fundamentally from the same statement made in writing to a stranger following months of escalating conflict. Courts examine the totality of circumstances surrounding a statement to determine whether it constitutes a true threat under the constitutional standard.
Federal Criminal Threat Statutes
Federal law addresses threats in multiple contexts, with different statutes applying depending on who is threatened and through what means the threat is communicated. The most broadly applicable federal threat statute is 18 U.S.C. Section 875, which criminalizes the interstate transmission of threatening communications. Under Section 875(c), transmitting any threatening communication in interstate or foreign commerce — including through phone, email, text message, social media, or any other electronic means that crosses state lines — is a federal felony punishable by up to five years in federal prison.
The interstate commerce element of Section 875 is satisfied easily in the modern digital environment, where virtually all electronic communications travel through interstate networks. A threatening email, text message, or social media post sent from anywhere in the United States almost certainly travels through interstate commerce, bringing it within the reach of federal prosecution. Federal prosecutors have applied Section 875 broadly, charging individuals for online threats, threatening voicemails, and harassing communications delivered through interstate electronic means.
Threats against the President of the United States and other specified government officials are separately criminalized under 18 U.S.C. Section 871, which makes it a federal felony to knowingly and willfully make any threat to take the life of, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon the President, Vice President, President-elect, members of Congress, federal judges, and other specified officials. Violations carry penalties of up to five years in federal prison and have been actively prosecuted even for statements made on social media platforms.
Terroristic threats — threats communicated with the intent to create a reasonable fear of a terrorist act — are addressed under 18 U.S.C. Section 2332a and related anti-terrorism statutes, with penalties far exceeding those for ordinary criminal threats. Threats involving weapons of mass destruction, threats against transportation infrastructure, and threats against nuclear facilities carry enhanced federal penalties reflecting the particular severity of these threat categories.
State Criminal Threat Statutes
Every U.S. state has criminal statutes addressing threats, though the specific statutory frameworks vary considerably from state to state. The most common state-level charges for threatening conduct include criminal threatening, menacing, terroristic threats, and stalking or harassment involving threatening communications. These charges are variously classified as misdemeanors or felonies depending on the severity of the threat, the weapon referenced, whether the threat was repeated, and whether the target suffered genuine fear as a result.
California Penal Code Section 422 — the criminal threats statute — is one of the most detailed and frequently applied state threat laws in the country. Under Section 422, it is a felony to willfully threaten to commit a crime that would result in death or great bodily injury to another person, if the threat is made with specific intent that it be taken as a threat, and if the threat causes the target to be in sustained fear for their own safety or the safety of their immediate family. Violation is a wobbler offense — chargeable as either a misdemeanor or felony at the prosecutor’s discretion — with felony conviction resulting in up to three years in state prison and a strike under California’s Three Strikes Law.
New York Penal Law Section 120.15 makes menacing in the third degree — intentionally placing another person in reasonable fear of physical injury by displaying a weapon or making threats — a Class B misdemeanor. Menacing in the second degree — accomplished with a weapon or following a prior conviction — is a Class A misdemeanor. Menacing in the first degree involving a deadly weapon or a violation of a protective order is a Class D felony.
Texas Penal Code Section 22.07 criminalizes terroristic threats — communicating threats to commit offenses involving violence with intent to place any person in fear of imminent bodily injury. Texas classifies this offense as a Class B misdemeanor at the basic level, elevating to a Class A misdemeanor when the threat targets a family or household member and to third-degree felony level when it targets public safety personnel or threatens to interrupt a public service or utility.
Domestic Violence Threats and Enhanced Consequences
Threatening a family member, intimate partner, or household member implicates domestic violence laws that impose enhanced penalties and additional consequences beyond the basic criminal threat charge. Domestic violence sentencing enhancements exist in most states and can significantly increase the punishment for threatening conduct occurring within intimate partner or family relationships. Restraining orders and protective orders — which prohibit the threatening party from contacting or approaching the victim — are routinely issued in domestic violence cases involving threats and can be obtained through both criminal and civil proceedings. Violation of a protective order following a threat can itself constitute a separate criminal offense.
Cyberthreats and Social Media
The explosion of digital communication platforms has created a new and rapidly evolving frontier for criminal threat law. Cyberthreats — threats communicated through email, text, social media, online forums, gaming platforms, and other digital channels — are subject to both federal statutes including Section 875 and state cyberstalking and cyberharassment laws that have been enacted specifically to address threatening conduct in digital environments. All 50 states have enacted cyberstalking or cyberharassment laws that address threatening communications transmitted through electronic means, and federal enforcement of Section 875 has been active in cases involving social media threats.
The public nature of social media threats creates both enhanced prosecutorial tools — public posts are easily documented — and enhanced legal risk for the person making the threat. Threats posted publicly on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other platforms are immediately documentable, widely witnessed, and clearly transmitted through interstate commerce, satisfying all elements of federal criminal threat statutes without the evidentiary challenges that may arise in other contexts.
Civil Liability for Threats
Beyond criminal consequences, threatening another person can create civil liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A person who makes credible, serious threats that cause genuine psychological harm to the target may be sued in civil court for damages including compensation for emotional distress, medical and psychiatric treatment costs, lost wages resulting from distress-related impairment, and in cases involving particularly egregious threatening conduct, punitive damages. Civil threat cases can proceed entirely independently of criminal prosecution, meaning that even when a prosecutor declines to pursue criminal charges, the victim retains the right to pursue civil damages through the tort system.
The Bottom Line on Threatening Someone
Threatening another person is illegal in the United States under both federal and state criminal law, subject to the constitutional requirement that the threat constitute a true threat rather than protected hyperbolic or figurative expression. Federal statutes criminalize interstate threatening communications with penalties up to five years in prison. State criminal threat, menacing, and terroristic threat statutes impose their own criminal penalties ranging from misdemeanor to felony depending on severity. Threats communicated through digital platforms trigger both federal Section 875 prosecutions and state cyberstalking and cyberharassment laws. Domestic violence context triggers enhanced penalties and protective order proceedings. Civil liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress provides an additional legal remedy for victims. The legal framework governing threats in the United States comprehensively reflects the principle that no person should have to live in fear of credible threatened violence — and that the law will respond forcefully when that principle is violated.
