The true threats doctrine holds that the First Amendment does not protect "true threats" — serious expressions of intent to commit unlawful violence. In Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the Supreme Court held that prosecuting speech as a true threat requires proof that the defendant was at minimum reckless: they consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their communication would be viewed as threatening. This subjective mental-state requirement replaced purely objective "reasonable observer" standards and makes it harder to prosecute ambiguous political speech as a threat. The doctrine directly governs the DOJ's prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey over his "86 47" Instagram post.