Maryland Court Upholds Conviction for School Shooting Threat in Book
Andrea "Alex" Ye sent a 129-page book to two friends on Instagram asking for writing feedback. The opening lines described wanting to shoot up a school — and one friend called the police. In October 2026, Maryland's Appellate Court upheld Ye's criminal conviction, ruling the book's opening constituted a legally unprotected "true threat," not fiction protected by the First Amendment — a decision with direct consequences for any non-citizen facing similar charges.
You wrote a story. You sent it to two friends for feedback. Now you're facing criminal charges — and a court says your fiction was a real threat. That's exactly what happened to Andrea "Alex" Ye, a student at Wootton High School in Montgomery County, Maryland. In October 2026, Maryland's Appellate Court upheld Ye's conviction for making a threat of mass violence, ruling that the opening lines of a 129-page book he sent via Instagram constituted a legally unprotected "true threat" — not protected speech under the First Amendment.
What the book said — and why the court treated it as a real threat
On March 3, 2024, Ye sent the book to two friends. The opening lines read: "I want to shoot up my school. I've been preparing for it for the past few months." A few lines later: "This gun is going to change lives tomorrow." One of the recipients, identified in court records as Maxwell, had previously spoken with Ye about what the court described as "homicidal ideations" involving a school shooting. After reading the first few pages, Maxwell called the police. Investigators obtained a search warrant and reviewed Ye's phone records, social media, and internet history. At the time, Ye was enrolled in virtual school after the school had issued a no-trespass order following earlier expressions of suicidal and homicidal thoughts.
Immigration Deadlines 2026 — Free
Download PDF with all key dates
Ye argued the book was fiction — a story about a Chinese-American transgender teen named James Wang — and that he shared it privately to get writing feedback. The circuit court disagreed. It found that the statements, read in context with Ye's prior conversations about wanting to commit a school shooting, allowed a reasonable conclusion that Ye intended to act. The appellate court, in its opinion written by Judge Graeff, agreed. Under Maryland law (Criminal Law § 3-1001), a person commits a crime by knowingly making a threat of mass violence. The court found the state proved Ye knew Maxwell would read those words as a genuine threat — especially because Maxwell had already expressed concern that Ye might act on violent impulses.
The court also addressed a key legal question: what mental state (called "mens rea") must prosecutors prove? The U.S. Supreme Court set "recklessness" as the constitutional minimum in Counterman v. Colorado (2023), meaning a person must have consciously disregarded the risk that their words would be seen as threatening. Maryland's law requires an even higher bar — "knowingly" — meaning the state had to show Ye actually understood his words would be perceived as a threat. The appellate court found that bar was met. Ye was convicted on January 8, 2025, and sentenced to 10 years, all but 12 months suspended, plus five years of supervised probation. The unsuspended portion was later reduced to 140 days.
What this means if you write about violence — even as fiction
- Context matters more than labels. Calling something "fiction" does not automatically protect it. Courts look at the full picture: prior conversations, the relationship between sender and recipient, and whether a reasonable person familiar with that context would read the words as a real threat.
- Private messages are not private from prosecutors. Sending something via Instagram DM or any messaging app to a small group does not shield the content from criminal review if a recipient reports it.
- Prior statements about violent thoughts can be used as evidence. If you have previously discussed wanting to harm others — even in passing — those conversations can become part of a criminal case.
- If you or someone you know is in a situation involving threatening communications, contact an immigration lawyer immediately if you are not a U.S. citizen. A criminal conviction for a threat of mass violence can have severe consequences for green card holders, visa holders, asylum seekers, and anyone in removal proceedings.
Related: our step-by-step guide — “Appealing to the BIA”.
Fishkin Law Firm, New York
A conviction for threatening mass violence is almost certainly a deportable offense and a bar to most forms of immigration relief, including asylum and adjustment of status to a green card. Even if a sentence is suspended or reduced — as happened here — immigration law looks at the offense itself, not the time actually served. Anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and is charged under a statute like Maryland's CR § 3-1001 should retain both a criminal defense attorney and an immigration attorney simultaneously, because decisions made in the criminal case directly shape what immigration options remain. Consult an immigration lawyer before entering any plea.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a criminal conviction for a threat of mass violence affect my green card or visa?
Yes. A conviction for threatening mass violence is a serious criminal offense under U.S. immigration law. It can make you deportable, bar you from getting a green card, and disqualify you from most forms of immigration relief. The length of your sentence matters less than the nature of the offense itself.
Does calling something "fiction" protect it from being treated as a criminal threat?
Not automatically. Courts look at the full context — including prior conversations, the relationship between the writer and the reader, and how a reasonable person familiar with that context would interpret the words. The Maryland court found that labeling the book as fiction did not override the context of Ye's prior statements about wanting to commit a school shooting.
What is a "true threat" under U.S. law?
A "true threat" is a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of intent to commit violence. It is not protected by the First Amendment. Courts look at the words used, how specific the threat is, and how a reasonable recipient familiar with the situation would react. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Counterman v. Colorado (2023) that prosecutors must also prove the speaker acted at least recklessly — meaning they consciously ignored the risk their words would be seen as threatening.
If I am an asylum seeker or have a pending immigration case, what happens if I am charged with a crime like this?
A pending immigration case does not protect you from criminal prosecution, and a criminal conviction can end your immigration case. Asylum applicants who are convicted of serious crimes — including threats of mass violence — can be barred from receiving asylum. You should tell your immigration attorney about any criminal charge immediately, even if you think the charge is minor or the case will be dismissed.