The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the conviction of Mark William Anten for transmitting threats to injure FBI agents through interstate communication. This ruling, filed on July 27, 2026, is significant as it clarifies the legal standards for what constitutes a 'true threat' under federal law. Anten's case highlights the serious implications of making threats, especially towards law enforcement officials.

Anten, who was previously a Confidential Human Source for the FBI, sent a series of alarming emails to agents, including a declaration that he would 'unabomb' the Los Angeles FBI headquarters. This case underscores the legal boundaries regarding free speech and the consequences of threatening communications.

Background

Mark William Anten was involved with the FBI in 2018 as a Confidential Human Source during a healthcare fraud investigation. His relationship with the FBI ended after he inadvertently revealed his undercover status. Following his termination, Anten attempted to communicate with his former handlers, leading to a series of troubling emails in 2023.

In July 2023, Anten re-established contact with the FBI, prompting renewed communications that escalated in intensity and alarming content. By December 2023, he had sent multiple emails that included threats against FBI agents, leading to his arrest and subsequent indictment on two counts of making threats under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court's jury instructions adequately covered the elements necessary for a conviction under the true-threat statute. The court confirmed that the statute requires both an objective threat element and a subjective mental state element. Judge Consuelo M. Callahan stated, "To determine whether or not the defendant transmitted a threat here, you should consider the circumstances under which the electronic communication was made, including its context with respect to surrounding conversation, the language the defendant used, and the reaction of those who received the electronic communication."

The court found that while the jury instructions could have been clearer, they sufficiently conveyed the requirements of the law. The judges emphasized that the jury must consider whether a reasonable person would view Anten's statements as threats, thus reinforcing the objective standard.

Impact

This ruling is important for future cases involving threats made through electronic communication. It clarifies that both the perspective of a reasonable person and the defendant's mental state must be considered when determining if a statement is a true threat. This decision helps establish a clearer standard for evaluating similar cases in the future, ensuring that individuals are held accountable for threatening communications.

The ruling may also have implications for how law enforcement and the courts handle cases involving threats, particularly in the context of free speech rights. It reinforces the idea that threats, even if not acted upon, can have serious legal consequences.

What's Next

Anten's conviction can potentially be appealed to the Supreme Court, although details about any such plans were not available in the court filing. There may also be related cases pending that explore the boundaries of free speech and threats under federal law.