Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Hansen
June 23, 2023599 U.S. 762
Summary
The Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is not facially overbroad because its terms “encourage” and “induce” are to be read as specialized criminal‑law terms referring only to purposeful solicitation or facilitation of unlawful immigration acts. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit’s overbreadth ruling was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.
Holding
- Whether 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.. The Court held that the provision is not facially overbroad because it reaches only purposeful solicitation or facilitation of unlawful immigration conduct and does not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech.
- Whether the terms “encourage” and “induce” are terms of art meaning solicitation and facilitation.. The Court held that Congress used “encourage” and “induce” as specialized criminal‑law terms that incorporate the common‑law liability of solicitation and facilitation.
- Whether the statute implicitly includes the traditional mens rea for solicitation and facilitation.. The Court held that, although the statute lacks an explicit mens rea clause for “encourage” or “induce,” the terms carry the usual intent requirement inherent in solicitation and facilitation, so the statute implicitly incorporates the requisite mens rea.
Docket 22-179
Cited authorities
- CA10
- CA11
- CA10
- CA11
- 39 Stat. 879
- 100 Stat. 3381
- 18 U.S.C. § 2
- 18 U.S.C. § 373
Cited by
- HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation
- State of Texas v. the United States of America
- Fresh Vision OP, Inc. v. Skoglund
- Kohls v. Bonta
- Swanson v. Hilgers
- Atlas Data Privacy Corporation v. We Inform, LLC
- Atlas Data Privacy Corporation v. Equimine, Inc.
- Atlas Data Privacy Corporation v. Civil Data Research