Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

United States v. Good

United States District Court for the District of Nebraska · 2019 · Civil Procedure

Civil Proceduremotion to dismissfacial overbreadthas-applied constitutional challengeindictment sufficiency8 U.S.C. § 1324harboringconspiracy

Facts

Good was charged in a superseding indictment with conspiring to harbor aliens, two substantive harboring counts under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), and money laundering conspiracy. The indictment alleged that he allowed certain aliens to conceal commercial assets and businesses in his name, provided a residence to harbor one alien, and warned others about possible immigration enforcement activity. It also alleged that he placed his name on a deed to a house and on a liquor license for a restaurant owned or operated by the aliens, and advised them how to avoid detection by law enforcement. Good moved to dismiss, arguing the charged harboring provisions were unconstitutional as applied and facially overbroad, and that the indictment failed to state offenses.

Issue

Whether the superseding indictment should be dismissed because 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (v)(I) are facially overbroad under the First Amendment, unconstitutional as applied, or because the indictment failed to state the charged offenses with sufficient specificity. More specifically, the district court addressed whether Good had shown any realistic danger that the charged subsections would significantly compromise First Amendment protections of parties not before the court.

Rule

A facial overbreadth challenge may be entertained only when there is a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the court. Facial challenges are disfavored, and a defendant must identify a significant difference between his facial overbreadth claim and his as-applied claim; it is inappropriate to entertain the facial challenge when the defendant adduces no evidence that third parties will be affected differently from him. An indictment is sufficient if it contains the essential elements of the offense, fairly informs the defendant of the charges, and permits him to plead a conviction or acquittal as a bar to later prosecution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Omaha, Caleb Morris is indicted under a federal statute that criminalizes certain conduct related to concealing unlawful activity. He moves to dismiss, arguing the statute is facially overbroad because it might chill pastors, social workers, and neighbors, but he offers only general assertions and no concrete examples showing how those third parties would be affected differently from him.

How should the court rule on Caleb's facial overbreadth challenge?

Explanation. Facial overbreadth review is disfavored and requires more than abstract concern. The defendant must show a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the court, and must identify how those third parties are affected differently from him. Bare speculation is insufficient. (Derived from United States v. Good (n.d.).)