Mens Rea: The Supreme Court, King Charles, Comey, and the Politics of Intent

New redistricting maps have been proliferating across red and blue states for the past ten months, drawn to benefit political parties in the 2026 United States House of Representatives elections. They are the largest coordinated attempt to redraw congressional districts between decennial censuses in modern American history.

Tit for tat across California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Florida has produced, at present, a wash. But this week's Supreme Court ruling has tweaked the rulebook in a way that could recast the American political landscape.

Writing for the majority in Louisiana v. Callais, Samuel Alito narrows the Voting Rights Act to a single word — intention. "Section 2 challenges must demonstrate that a state intentionally drew new maps to reduce the opportunity of minority voters."

Proving intent in law involves establishing a person's mental state behind an action — achieved through circumstantial evidence, inferred behavior, and statements rather than direct mind-reading. Prosecutors show intent by demonstrating that acts were knowing, willful, reckless, and directly caused the consequences at issue. In practice, the landmark 6-3 ruling struck down Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district and held that race-conscious redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional.

At the center of the ruling lies a chief justice with a cause of his own. As a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, John Roberts criticized the Voting Rights Act's reliance on discriminatory effects rather than discriminatory intent. In internal memoranda, he argued that Section 2 went "beyond" the Constitution by regulating practices that merely resulted in racial disparities. His concern was not the persistence of discrimination, but Congress' aggressive response to it. In Shelby County v. Holder, Roberts wrote that "things have changed in the South," concluding that extraordinary federal oversight was no longer justified.

Unless, of course, you're a former FBI director who has run afoul of the president.

James Comey posted a photo to Instagram in May 2025. In it: seashells arranged on a beach to read "86 47." The Department of Justice indicted him for it this week, arguing that numbers — "86" is a reference to "get rid of," and that "47" is a reference to the 47th president of the United States —constituting a criminal intention to harm the president. Comey maintains the post was a political message, and an exercise of his First Amendment rights to free speech.

The Supreme Court steps in again. Referencing Counterman v. Colorado, prosecutors at the DOJ must prove Comey "had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements," rather than simply how a reasonable person might interpret them. Because the post is ambiguous, demonstrating that Comey acted "knowingly and willfully" will be, in the estimation of legal observers, a tall burden for the government — given broad First Amendment protections for political speech.

The case is a major test of how recent Supreme Court rulings on "True Threats" apply to cryptic or symbolic political expression. True threats are serious expressions of intent to commit unlawful violence against specific individuals or groups and are not protected by the First Amendment. Counterman changed the legal test from an objective "reasonable person" standard to a subjective one focused on the speaker's mens rea — the standard common law test of criminal liability expressed in the Latin maxim: Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.

True Colors

Voting Rights. Election Interference. True Threats? Charlatan follows a former FBI director to the red and blue — and to the new wave of mens rea washing up on American shores.