Wisconsin v. Mitchell

Background

On October 7, 1989, Todd Mitchell, part of a group of young Black men and boys in Kenosha, Wisconsin, urged the group to attack a passing white boy. They chased, beat, and robbed him; he was left unconscious and in a coma for four days. Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery. Because a jury found he had chosen the victim because of race, Wisconsin increased the crime’s maximum sentence from two to seven years under §939.645. The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the statute as punishing motive and overbroad, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether enhancing a sentence for choosing a victim because of race violates the First Amendment and held that it does not. The majority explained the law targets criminal conduct, not protected speech, and noted that motive has long been relevant in sentencing. The Court distinguished a prior decision that struck down a law aimed directly at speech, stressed that bias-motivated crimes inflict special harms, and found the claimed “chill” on speech to be too speculative to invalidate the statute. The Court also allowed that past statements may be used as evidence of motive under ordinary evidentiary rules.

Real world impact

The ruling lets states keep similar penalty enhancements and lets prosecutors and judges consider bias motive when increasing sentences. Victims of bias-motivated attacks may face stronger punishment for offenders; hateful speech is not criminal by itself but can be used to prove motive in a covered crime. The Court reversed the Wisconsin decision and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

The Wisconsin Supreme Court had dissenting justices who would have upheld the statute as targeting conduct rather than belief; that split among state courts helped prompt the high court’s review.