U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 41— EXTORTION AND THREATS

18 U.S.C. § 875

Interstate communications

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 741; Pub. L. 99–646, § 63, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), (H), (K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 408d (May 18, 1934, ch. 300, 48 Stat. 781; May 15, 1939, ch. 133, § 2, 53 Stat. 743).

Provisions as to district of trial were omitted as covered by sections 3237 and 3239 of this title.

Definition of “interstate commerce” was omitted in conformity with definitive section 10 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology and arrangement.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(K), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $5,000”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(H), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(G), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $500”.

1986—Pub. L. 99–646 inserted “or foreign” after “interstate” wherever appearing.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 869 cases (214 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: United States v. Coss, 677 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Coss, 677 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 43× “§§ 371 and 875(d) (Count One) and two counts of transmission of interstate communications of threat to injure the reputation of another with intent to extort money in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 875 (d) and 2(a) (Counts Two and Three).”
State v. Trey M., 383 P.3d 474 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 19× “at 2008 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c)). The Court reversed defendant’s convictions, holding that conviction under the federal statute would require a showing that defendant intended to issue threats or knew that his communications would be viewed as threats.”
Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015). · cites it 13× “He was charged with five counts of violating 18 U. S. C. §875 (c), which makes it a federal crime to transmit in interstate commerce “any communication containing any threat .”
Lee Carrell v. United States (Revised Version), 165 A.3d 314 (D.C. 2017). · cites it 16× “Code § 22-1810 , passed in 1968 9 and patterned on a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c) (1994),10 is similarly vague about what exactly the government must prove to obtain a conviction.”
United States v. James Heller, 579 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1978). · cites it 29× “Defendant-appellant was indicted on five counts of having willfully and knowingly transmitted in interstate commerce a communication that contained a demand and request for a ransom and reward for the release of a kidnapped person, conduct alleged to be in violation of 18 U.S.C.…”
United States v. Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz, Also Known as Jake Baker, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 28× “Jake Baker, and Arthur Gonda did not constitute “true threats,” the government appeals the dismissal of the indictment charging Baker with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c). From November 1994 until approximately January 1995, Baker and Gonda exchanged e-mail messages over the…”
United States v. William White, 810 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “MW reported the threats to the authorities, and Appellant was eventually charged in a four-count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. § 875 (b), which makes it a felony to *216 transmit threats in interstate commerce with the intent to extort.”
United States v. Rapert, 75 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2016). · cites it 10× “ELONIS AND COMMUNICATING A THREAT In Elonis, a defendant who had made a number of emotionally charged “posts” on social media was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c)—a statute criminalizing the interstate communication of threats.”
United States v. Heineman, 767 F.3d 970 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 16× “See 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c). The district court found that he knowingly sent an e-mail that caused the recipient to reasonably fear bodily harm.”
United States v. White, 670 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 12× “Mail, and telephone—threats to injure or intimidate individuals, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c) (prohibiting interstate communications containing threats to injure a person), and the conviction on Count 3 was for violating 18 U.”
United States v. Mobley, 971 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2020). · cites it 10× “§ 1204 , and extortionate interstate communications, 18 U.S.C. § 875 (b). A jury convicted Osipova, and the district court sentenced her to three years on her parental-kidnapping conviction (the statutory maximum) and to seven years on each of her extortionate-communications…”
United States v. Russell Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1976). · cites it 12× “The second is that there was no “communication” within the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c), note 1 supra, because there was no specific addressee of the alleged threat, that is to say, the appellant was not expecting Arafat to watch the WPIX ten o’clock news and there was no…”
Show all 869 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 875(b) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Pistonik, 2020 OK 93 (Okla. 2020).
— 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) — 8 cases
Smith v. State, 158 A.3d 1154 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2017).
United States v. Moreland, 207 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (N.D. Okla. 2016).
United States v. Edward Killingsworth, Jr. (6th Cir. 2022).
United States v. Farhan Sheikh (7th Cir. 2026).
Smith v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2017).
— 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) — 1 case
United States v. Ray, 632 F. App'x 260 (6th Cir. 2016).
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.