Under 18 U.S.C. 876, mailing threats through the U.S. Postal Service is a federal crime that carries anywhere from two to twenty years in prison, depending on what the letter demanded and who received it. The statute reaches four distinct offenses: ransom demands, threats used as extortion leverage, plain threats to kidnap or injure, and threats to damage property or reputation. Each has its own maximum sentence, and each has been reshaped in recent years by Supreme Court decisions on what the sender had to be thinking when the letter went out.
The Four Offenses and Their Maximum Sentences
Section 876 is organized by subsection, and the penalty depends on which one applies.
- Subsection (a) covers any mailed communication demanding ransom or reward for the release of a kidnapped person. Maximum: 20 years.
- Subsection (b) covers threats to kidnap or physically harm someone, sent with intent to extort money or anything of value. Maximum: 20 years.
- Subsection (c) covers threats to kidnap or injure someone without any extortion motive. Maximum: 5 years — or 10 years if the letter is addressed to a federal judge, a federal law enforcement officer, or certain other covered federal officials.
- Subsection (d) covers threats to damage property, harm reputation, or accuse someone of a crime, sent to extort money. Maximum: 2 years, rising to 10 years when the target is a federal judge, law enforcement officer, or other covered federal official.
A fine can be imposed on top of, or instead of, prison time under any subsection.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 876 – Mailing Threatening Communications For a felony, federal fines can run up to $250,000.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3571 – Sentence of Fine
What Counts as Mailing, and What Doesn’t
The statute reaches anyone who deposits a threatening letter in a post office or authorized mail depository, or who causes such a letter to be delivered by the Postal Service. Handing the envelope to someone else to mail still qualifies. Courts have held that the recipient does not have to open or read the letter for the offense to be complete — dropping it in the mail is enough.
The reach stops at the Postal Service. Threats sent through FedEx, UPS, or other private carriers are not covered by Section 876, and neither are threats sent by email, text, phone, or social media. Those fall under 18 U.S.C. 875, which criminalizes threatening communications transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce and carries a nearly identical penalty structure.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 875 – Interstate Communications Because digital messages routinely cross state lines through servers in multiple states, Section 875’s jurisdictional element is almost always easy for prosecutors to meet.
What Prosecutors Have to Prove
To convict, the government has to show three things: the communication contained a threat, the sender had the required mental state, and the letter went through the U.S. mail.
The True Threat Requirement
Not every angry or hostile letter is a federal crime. The First Amendment protects offensive, aggressive, and disturbing speech. It does not protect “true threats” — statements communicating a serious intent to commit violence against a particular person or group. The Supreme Court drew that line in Virginia v. Black (2003).
Context does most of the work. Courts look at the relationship between the sender and recipient, any prior history, and the tone and circumstances surrounding the letter. Language that reads as dark humor between close friends can land as a genuine threat when sent to a stranger or a public official. Ambiguity does not automatically defeat the charge: if a reasonable person in the recipient’s position would take the message as a serious threat, that can be enough on the objective side of the analysis.
The Mental State After Counterman
What the sender was thinking has been the subject of two Supreme Court decisions in the last decade, and the current rule matters.
In Elonis v. United States (2015), the Court reversed a conviction under the parallel Section 875(c) because the jury had been instructed that it only needed to find a reasonable person would view the defendant’s posts as threatening. The Court held that negligence — the idea that the sender should have known the words were threatening — is not enough for a federal threat conviction. It expressly left open whether recklessness would suffice.4Justia Law. Elonis v United States – 575 US 723 (2015)
Counterman v. Colorado (2023) answered that question. Recklessness is now the minimum mental state required for a true-threats prosecution. In practical terms, the government must show the sender consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the recipient would view the communication as threatening violence, and sent it anyway. Prosecutors do not have to prove the sender specifically intended to frighten anyone, only that the sender was aware of the risk and ignored it.5Justia Law. Counterman v Colorado – 600 US ___ (2023)
Because a sender’s state of mind is rarely admitted directly, prosecutors typically prove it through circumstantial evidence: prior threats, escalating language across multiple letters, the history between sender and recipient, or efforts to conceal identity. A single impulsive remark with nothing around it is a harder case than a documented pattern.
How Sentences Actually Get Calculated
Federal judges do not simply pick a number between zero and the statutory maximum. They apply the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which set a base offense level and then adjust upward or downward for case-specific factors. For threatening communications, the base offense level starts at 12.6United States Sentencing Commission. USSG 2A6.1 – Threatening or Harassing Communications; Hoaxes; False Liens
Several factors push the number up:
- Evidence the sender actually intended to carry out the threat adds six levels — the largest single adjustment in this guideline.
- More than two threatening communications adds two levels.
- Sending the threat while subject to a court protection order adds two levels.
- Substantial disruption to government functions, businesses, or public services — including costly emergency responses — adds four levels.
A single impulsive threat showing little deliberation can qualify for a four-level decrease. Criminal history is a separate axis that also feeds into the guideline range, and victim impact statements often influence where within the range the judge lands.6United States Sentencing Commission. USSG 2A6.1 – Threatening or Harassing Communications; Hoaxes; False Liens
After any prison sentence, defendants typically serve a period of supervised release with conditions like check-ins, travel restrictions, and no-contact orders. The maximum term is up to three years when the underlying offense carries five or more years of prison exposure, and up to one year for shorter-maximum offenses.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3583 – Inclusion of a Term of Supervised Release After Imprisonment
Defenses That Work Against Section 876 Charges
The most common defense is that the communication was not a true threat. If the words, read in context, amount to political hyperbole, dark humor, artistic expression, or emotional venting rather than a genuine expression of intent to harm, they fall within First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court applied that reasoning in Watts v. United States (1969), reversing the conviction of a Vietnam-era protester whose statement about the President the Court read as crude political rhetoric.
Counterman opened a second line of defense. If the sender genuinely had no awareness that the recipient could perceive the message as threatening — and was not consciously ignoring that risk — the recklessness standard is not met. This matters most for offhand remarks, poorly worded jokes, or communications between people who share a long history of similar language that neither took seriously.5Justia Law. Counterman v Colorado – 600 US ___ (2023)
Defense counsel also attack the mail element. If prosecutors cannot prove the defendant sent the letter through the Postal Service or caused it to be delivered that way, the Section 876 charge fails. That opening comes up with anonymous letters where authorship is disputed, or where the method of delivery isn’t clearly established.
Mistaken identity is a practical defense in cases involving typed or printed letters with no return address. Without fingerprints, DNA, surveillance footage, or a digital trail connecting the defendant to the letter, proving who actually deposited it can be difficult.
The Five-Year Deadline for Charges
The federal government generally has five years from the date of the offense to bring charges for a non-capital crime, including violations of Section 876. Once that window closes, prosecution is barred. The clock starts the day the letter is deposited in the mail, not the day the recipient reads it.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 3282 – Offenses Not Capital
Most cases move faster than that. Mailed threats generate physical evidence, forensic analysis happens early, and victims usually report promptly. The five-year cutoff matters most in cases where the threat is uncovered later during a broader investigation.
Consequences Beyond Prison
A Section 876 conviction has effects that outlast the sentence itself. The most immediate is the loss of firearm rights. Federal law permanently bars anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing firearms or ammunition. Because subsection (c) alone carries a five-year maximum, nearly any felony conviction under this statute triggers the ban.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 922 – Unlawful Acts
A permanent federal criminal record creates obstacles in employment, housing, and professional licensing. Background checks surface the conviction. Employers requiring security clearances or positions of public trust often treat a threat-related felony as disqualifying, and licensing boards in fields like law, medicine, and finance may deny or revoke licenses based on felony convictions involving moral turpitude.
For non-citizens, the stakes are higher. Federal immigration law can classify certain offenses involving threats or extortion as aggravated felonies or crimes of moral turpitude, either of which can trigger mandatory deportation or permanent inadmissibility. Talk to an immigration attorney before entering any plea.
Victims can also sue civilly for emotional distress and related harm. A criminal conviction is not required to bring a civil case, but it makes the plaintiff’s job substantially easier because the facts have already been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil statutes of limitations vary by state, typically falling within one to four years.
If You Received a Threatening Letter
How you handle the evidence in the first few hours can shape the investigation. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service takes reports of threatening mail at 1-877-876-2455.10United States Postal Inspection Service. Report Suspicious Mail
Keep the letter and its envelope intact and handle them as little as possible. The paper, stamps, and adhesive can all carry forensic evidence. If the envelope contains a suspicious substance, isolate it, wash your hands with soap and warm water, alert others nearby, and call authorities. Call 911 first if you feel you are in immediate danger.
You can also report threats to the FBI at 1-800-225-5324 or online at tips.fbi.gov. When you report, provide the exact wording of the threat, anything you know about the sender, and the circumstances around receiving it. Save every letter — a pattern of escalating communications strengthens the case considerably.11Federal Bureau of Investigation. Threat Intimidation Guide