18 U.S.C. § 2261A
Stalking
2020—Pub. L. 116–249 substituted “section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be” for “section 2261(b) of this title” in concluding provisions.
2018—Par. (1)(A)(iv). Pub. L. 115–334, § 12502(a)(1)(A), added cl. (iv).
Par. (2)(A). Pub. L. 115–334, § 12502(a)(1)(B), inserted “, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse” after “to a person” and substituted “(iii), or (iv)” for “or (iii)”.
2013—Pub. L. 113–4 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to stalking.
2006—Pub. L. 109–162 amended section catchline and text generally, revising and restating former provisions relating to stalking so as to include surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate which results in substantial emotional distress to a person within the purview of the offense proscribed.
2000—Pub. L. 106–386 reenacted section catchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Whoever travels across a State line or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to injure or harass another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365(g)(3) of this title) to, that person or a member of that person’s immediate family (as defined in section 115 of this title) shall be punished as provided in section 2261 of this title.”
Amendment by Pub. L. 113–4 not effective until the beginning of the fiscal year following
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 331
cases (177 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: United States v. Christopher Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Christopher Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014). “OSINGER SUMMARY* Criminal Law The panel affirmed a conviction and sentence for stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. The panel held that because § 2261A proscribes harassing and intimidating conduct, it is not facially invalid under the First Amendment.”
United States v. Amy Gonzalez, 905 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2018). “Gonzalez, acting along with the other members of her family as a member of the conspiracy, defamed Belford by falsely labeling her as a mentally unfit abuser who sexually molested her own children.”
United States v. Erik Bowker, 372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2004). “” We fail to see how a law that prohibits interstate travel with the intent to kill, injure, harass or intimidate has a substantial sweep of constitutionally protected conduct.”
United States v. Brandon Michael Fleury, 20 F.4th 1353 (11th Cir. 2021). “See 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2). 7 Because the plain language of § 2261A(2) establishes a mens rea requirement sufficient “to separate wrongful conduct from ‘otherwise innocent conduct,’” Elonis, 575 U.”
United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2012). “In the dining room of the home, officers found a cabinet containing two shotguns and a rifle.”
United States v. Emad Al-Zubaidy, 283 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2002). “This action stems from an interstate stalking charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A brought against Defendant Appellant Emad Al-Zubaidy.”
United States v. Ackell, 907 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2018). “*70 A jury convicted David Ackell of one count of stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. He now brings a First Amendment challenge to that statute, in addition to challenging the district court's jury instructions and arguing that insufficient evidence supported his…”
United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011). “CHIN, Circuit Judge: In this case, defendant-appellant James Curley (“Curley”) was convicted of stalking and harassing his wife Linda in the summer and fall of 2006 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A and 2262(a)(1). At trial, the district court admitted evidence that: (1) Curley…”
United States v. Jovica Petrovic, 701 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2012). “Procedural History On October 6, 2010, a grand jury indicted Petrovic with, among other charges, *854 four counts of interstate stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A), and two counts of interstate extortionate threat, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Sterling Roberts, 84 F.4th 659 (6th Cir. 2023). “He also raises two constitutional challenges to the interstate stalking statute under which he was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, claiming that it exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and that the counts of his conviction are multiplicitous.”
United States v. Ho Ka Yung, 37 F.4th 70 (3rd Cir. 2022). “18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2); see also § 2266(2).”
United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011). “18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1). The appellant theorizes that the statute applies only when some injuring or harassing act takes place during or after the interstate travel.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1) — 36 cases
United States v. Amy Gonzalez, 905 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2018). “Gonzalez, acting along with the other members of her family as a member of the conspiracy, defamed Belford by falsely labeling her as a mentally unfit abuser who sexually molested her own children.”
United States v. Erik Bowker, 372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2004). “” We fail to see how a law that prohibits interstate travel with the intent to kill, injure, harass or intimidate has a substantial sweep of constitutionally protected conduct.”
United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011). “18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1). The appellant theorizes that the statute applies only when some injuring or harassing act takes place during or after the interstate travel.”
United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011). “CHIN, Circuit Judge: In this case, defendant-appellant James Curley (“Curley”) was convicted of stalking and harassing his wife Linda in the summer and fall of 2006 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A and 2262(a)(1). At trial, the district court admitted evidence that: (1) Curley…”
United States v. Fullmer, 584 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2009).
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Lee, 790 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2015).
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1)(B) — 4 cases
United States v. Robert Gross, 23 F.4th 1048 (8th Cir. 2022).
Weidinger v. Djokic (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
Bartley v. United States (N.D.W. Va. 2022).
Schiff v. Warden (D. Maryland 2024).
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2) — 76 cases
United States v. Amy Gonzalez, 905 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2018). “Gonzalez, acting along with the other members of her family as a member of the conspiracy, defamed Belford by falsely labeling her as a mentally unfit abuser who sexually molested her own children.”
United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2012). “In the dining room of the home, officers found a cabinet containing two shotguns and a rifle.”
United States v. Erik Bowker, 372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2004). “” We fail to see how a law that prohibits interstate travel with the intent to kill, injure, harass or intimidate has a substantial sweep of constitutionally protected conduct.”
United States v. Christopher Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014). “OSINGER SUMMARY* Criminal Law The panel affirmed a conviction and sentence for stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. The panel held that because § 2261A proscribes harassing and intimidating conduct, it is not facially invalid under the First Amendment.”
United States v. Rentz, 777 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2015).
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A) — 27 cases
United States v. Christopher Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014). “OSINGER SUMMARY* Criminal Law The panel affirmed a conviction and sentence for stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. The panel held that because § 2261A proscribes harassing and intimidating conduct, it is not facially invalid under the First Amendment.”
United States v. Jovica Petrovic, 701 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2012). “Procedural History On October 6, 2010, a grand jury indicted Petrovic with, among other charges, *854 four counts of interstate stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A), and two counts of interstate extortionate threat, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Cassidy, 814 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Maryland 2011).
United States v. Sayer, 748 F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 2014).
United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2012). “In the dining room of the home, officers found a cabinet containing two shotguns and a rifle.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) — 68 cases
United States v. Brandon Michael Fleury, 20 F.4th 1353 (11th Cir. 2021). “See 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2). 7 Because the plain language of § 2261A(2) establishes a mens rea requirement sufficient “to separate wrongful conduct from ‘otherwise innocent conduct,’” Elonis, 575 U.”
United States v. Ackell, 907 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2018). “*70 A jury convicted David Ackell of one count of stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. He now brings a First Amendment challenge to that statute, in addition to challenging the district court's jury instructions and arguing that insufficient evidence supported his…”
United States v. Christopher Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2014). “OSINGER SUMMARY* Criminal Law The panel affirmed a conviction and sentence for stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. The panel held that because § 2261A proscribes harassing and intimidating conduct, it is not facially invalid under the First Amendment.”
United States v. Ho Ka Yung, 37 F.4th 70 (3rd Cir. 2022). “18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2); see also § 2266(2).”
United States v. Dennis Sryniawski, 48 F.4th 583 (8th Cir. 2022).
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(a) — 1 case
United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2012). “In the dining room of the home, officers found a cabinet containing two shotguns and a rifle.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(6) — 1 case
United States v. Jordan, 591 F. Supp. 2d 686 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(A) — 1 case
United States v. Roberts (9th Cir. 2024).
— 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(l) — 4 cases
United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011). “18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1). The appellant theorizes that the statute applies only when some injuring or harassing act takes place during or after the interstate travel.”
United States v. Lee, 790 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2015).
United States v. Adam McClellan, 436 F. App'x 479 (6th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Matusiewicz, 165 F. Supp. 3d 166 (D. Del. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.