On March 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Hansen. This case, furthermore, presented a critical legal question. Specifically, it asked if a federal law against “encouraging or inducing” unlawful immigration was unconstitutionally overbroad. This matter fell under the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

The Case and Legal Challenge

Helaman Hansen’s prosecution, in fact, began the case. Hansen was convicted for running a fraudulent scheme. Subsequently, he had falsely promised non-citizens a path to U.S. citizenship through a fake “adult adoption” program. As part of the Supreme Court’s review, a court also convicted Hansen for encouraging people to stay in the country illegally.

Furthermore, Hansen’s legal team argued that the law was too broad. They said the words “encourage or induce” could criminalize protected speech. For example, a lawyer giving legal advice or a family member offering support could count as “encouraging.” Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. As a result, it found the law unconstitutionally overbroad, leading to the crucial Supreme Court involvement.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

On June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision. In a 7-2 vote, it reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The majority opinion, which Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, upheld the law. However, the Court did so by interpreting the law narrowly.

The Court ruled that people should not take “encourage” and “induce” in their everyday sense. Instead, they are legal terms of art. They refer to criminal solicitation and facilitation of unlawful acts. This interpretation, therefore, ensures the law targets speech that is “integral to criminal conduct.” It does not, for example, apply to a broader category of protected speech. For instance, it would not criminalize a lawyer’s general advice. The Supreme Court ensured an activist’s political advocacy would also not be criminalized. It does, however, apply to cases like Hansen’s, where the encouragement was part of a criminal scheme.

Ultimately, the decision preserved the government’s ability to prosecute people who facilitate immigration crimes. At the same time, it protected a wide range of speech unrelated to such criminal activity. This ruling consequently provided an important clarification from the Supreme Court on the balance between national security and the First Amendment.