The Supreme Court Seems Poised to Decide an Imaginary Case

(Originally published by The Atlantic on April 26, 2023)

Assistant Professor Evelyn Douek (left) and Professor Genevieve Lakier, University of Chicago Law School (right)

A dispute about a stalking conviction has morphed into something very different—with potentially dangerous results.

A few years ago, Billy Raymond Counterman was convicted of stalking. Now his case is before the Supreme Court—where, bafflingly, the justices spent oral arguments last week exploring how to define a “true threat,” something Counterman was never convicted of making. Threats and stalking are entirely different crimes, with entirely different elements and constitutional implications. If the Court goes ahead and issues a ruling about threats, as it seems poised to do, it could inadvertently weaken stalking laws around the country. A set of imaginary facts could lead to serious real-world harm.

(Continue reading the opinion essay on The Atlantic’s page here.)