United States v. Hansen

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Evidence

EvidenceFirst AmendmentOverbreadthStatutory InterpretationImmigration8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)encourages or inducessolicitation

Facts

Hansen ran an "adult adoption" scheme that falsely promised noncitizens a path to U.S. citizenship and collected nearly $2 million from more than 450 people. One participant, facing visa expiration, was told by Hansen to remain in the country because immigration authorities supposedly could not touch him once he was in the program. The Government charged Hansen with violating 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which prohibits encouraging or inducing a noncitizen to come to, enter, or reside in the United States unlawfully. After conviction, Hansen challenged that clause as facially overbroad under the First Amendment.

Issue

Whether 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which forbids "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" unlawful immigration, is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine. The question turned on whether "encourages or induces" uses ordinary broad meanings or instead refers to the criminal-law concepts of solicitation and facilitation.

Rule

A statute is facially invalid for overbreadth only if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep. In 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), the phrase "encourages or induces" is used in its specialized criminal-law sense and reaches only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, with the traditional mens rea of those common-law concepts incorporated implicitly.

🔒

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 Phoenix, Nora Velasquez runs a service that, for a fee, pairs noncitizens with counterfeit work permits and tells each client exactly how to use the documents to remain in the United States despite knowing their residence will be unlawful. She is charged under a federal statute forbidding anyone to encourage or induce a noncitizen to come to, enter, or reside in the United States unlawfully.

If Nora argues the statute is facially invalid under the First Amendment because it could also cover protected speech in other situations, how should a court rule?

Explanation. The majority construed "encourages or induces" as criminal-law terms of art covering purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific unlawful immigration acts known to violate federal law. On that narrowing construction, the statute has an extensive plainly legitimate sweep, including conduct such as providing counterfeit immigration documents, and any hypothetical unconstitutional applications are not substantial relative to that sweep. (Derived from United States v. Hansen (n.d.).)