In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Watts v. U.S.
At a protest, a young man made a statement about getting the president in the sights of his rifle, and was convicted of threatening the life of the president. Was he, though?
The question before the court: Was his statement actually a threat? Was it prohibited by the law?
Facts of the Case
We begin at a public rally at the Washington Monument. The crowd there broke into smaller discussion groups. 18-year-old RW joined a group with several people around their own age (so, mostly teens to early twenties) to talk about police brutality. During the conversation, someone in the group suggested that the young people there needed to educate themselves more before expressing their views. To this, RW responded:
They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is [the president]. They are not going to make me kill my black brothers.
Reportedly, after RW made this statement, both they and the assembled crowd laughed about it together.
Also present at the rally was an investigator for the Army Counter Intelligence Corps, who overheard RW’s comment and reported them to the authorities for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 871 (a).
According to this statute:
Whoever…knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
RW was arrested and tried in a US District Court for threatening the life of the president at the Washington Monument rally. During the trial, after the prosecution completed their case, RW’s counsel moved to have RW acquitted. According to counsel, the statement made by RW was political speech, and was a crude remark expressing opposition to the policies represented by the president. The judge denied the motion and the jury convicted RW of the alleged crime.
RW’s conviction was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where it was upheld in a 2-1 vote.
Following the loss in the Court of Appeals, the conviction was again appealed, this time to the US Supreme Court, where now our justices must decide: did the trial judge make an error in denying the motion for acquittal, or should RW’s conviction stand?
Ruling of the Relitigated Justices
Click here to show how the Relitigated justices ruled on the case…
Votes By Party
Watts
0
Argued by Jarret
v.
United States
3
Argued by Nikki
Votes By Justice
Chief Justice Sarah
United States
Justice Chris
United States
Justice Preston
United States
References
Ayton, M. (2014). Hunting the president : threats, plots, and assassination attempts ; from FDR to Obama. Regnery.
Brown, C. (2011). A true threat to first amendment rights: United States v. Turner and the true threats doctrine. Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 18(2), 281-307. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1389&context=txwes-lr
Crane, P. T. (2006). “True threats” and the issue of intent. Virginia Law Review, 92, 1225-1277. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1322431
Griffin, R. (2022). Searching for truth in the first amendment’s true threat doctrine. Michigan Law Review, 120(4), 721-752. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7854&context=mlr
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
Watts v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 22, 2025, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/1107%20MISC