Monitor evolving ESG laws with Ballotpedia’s fact-based, free tool. Get the info you need in seconds—visit the tracker!

United States v. Hansen

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Hansen
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: March 27, 2023
Decided: June 23, 2023
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Ketanji Brown Jackson • Sonia Sotomayor

United States v. Hansen is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 27, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term.

In a 7-2 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that since Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) only forbids the intentional solicitation or facilitation of certain unlawful acts, it is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned a First Amendment challenge to U.S. immigration law outlawing the inducement of illegal immigration for personal financial gain, and the court's ruling in United States v. Sineneng-Smith (2019). Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The question presented: "Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds."[2]
  • The outcome: The Court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Helaman Hansen ("Hansen") was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California of violating U.S. immigration law for inducing and encouraging noncitizens to enter the United States illegally. From 2012 to 2016, he promised a knowingly false path to citizenship and charged them extensive fees to remain in the country.[2][3]

    While Hansen's case was in progress, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was considering United States v. Sineneng-Smith (2019), a case that also concerned inducing and encouraging noncitizens to enter the country illegally. In that case, the court solicited arguments to consider whether the immigration law at issue, Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) - Section 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens, was unconstitutional on its face due to the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, which chills, or suppresses third parties' First Amendment rights if the claims are considered to be overly broad by the court. Hansen filed a post-trial motion to dismiss his Section 1324(a) convictions based on the overbreadth doctrine. The district court denied his request. Hansen was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release.[2][3]

    On December 4, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Sinening-Smith, adopting the overbreadth doctrine. The U.S. government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad. SCOTUS did not decide that issue, rather, the court vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the Ninth Circuit committed an abuse of discretion by soliciting the overbreadth argument and then invalidating the federal statute.[2][3]

    Hansen appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the court agreed that the legal statute violates the First Amendment based on the overbreadth doctrine. The court also declined the government's request to rehear the case. On August 25, 2022, the U.S. government appealed to SCOTUS for review. On December 9, 2022, the court accepted the case to its merits docket.[2][4]

    United States v. Sineneng-Smith (2019)

    United States v. Sineneng-Smith was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 25, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

    In a unanimous ruling, the court vacated the decision of the 9th Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the 9th Circuit's departure from the principle of party presentation, as set forth by Greenlaw v. United States (2008), by reaching to decide a question that was not raised by the respondent in the case constituted an abuse of discretion.[5][6][7]

    Click here to read more about the case.

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Question presented:
    “ Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.[8] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[9]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[10]

    Outcome

    In a 7-2 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that since Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) only forbids the intentional solicitation or facilitation of certain unlawful acts, it is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ A federal law prohibits “encourag[ing] or induc[ing]” illegal immigration. 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). After concluding that this statute criminalizes immigration advocacy and other protected speech, the Ninth Circuit held it unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment. That was error. Properly interpreted, this provision forbids only the intentional solicitation or facilitation of certain unlawful acts. It does not “prohibi[t] a substantial amount of protected speech”—let alone enough to justify throwing out the law’s “plainly legitimate sweep.” United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 292 (2008). We reverse.[8] ”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to emphasize how far afield the facial overbreadth doctrine has carried the Judiciary from its constitutional role. The facial overbreadth doctrine “purports to grant federal courts the power to invalidate a law” that is constitutional as applied to the party before it “‘if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’” Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 2) (quoting United States v. SinenengSmith, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1)). As I have explained, this doctrine “lacks any basis in the text or history of the First Amendment, relaxes the traditional standard for facial challenges,” and distorts the judicial role. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 9).[8] ”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

    In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]

    “ At bottom, this case is about how to interpret a statute that prohibits “encourag[ing] or induc[ing]” a noncitizen “to come to, enter, or reside in the United States” unlawfully. 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). The Court reads that broad language as a narrow prohibition on the intentional solicitation or facilitation of a specific act of unlawful immigration—and it thereby avoids having to invalidate this statute under our well-established First Amendment overbreadth doctrine. But the majority departs from ordinary principles of statutory interpretation to reach that result. Specifically, it rewrites the provision’s text to include elements that Congress once adopted but later removed as part of its incremental expansion of this particular criminal law over the last century.


    It is neither our job nor our prerogative to retrofit federal statutes in a manner patently inconsistent with Congress’s choices. Moreover, by acquiescing to the Government’s newly minted pitch to narrow this statute in order to save it,1 the majority undermines the goal of the overbreadth doctrine, which aims to keep overly broad statutes off the books in order to avoid chilling constitutionally protected speech. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 486–487 (1965). Because the majority’s interpretation of §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) diverges from the text and history of the provision, and simultaneously subverts the speech-protective goals of the constitutional doctrine plainly implicated here, I respectfully dissent. [8]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.


    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[11]


    Related cases

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "United States v. Hansen - Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," accessed June 23, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "United States of America v. Hansen: On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," filed August 25, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Hansen, decided February 10, 2022
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices take up four new cases, including challenge to federal ban on encouraging illegal immigration," December 9, 2022
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, decided May 7, 2020
    6. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Greenlaw v. United States, accessed May 7, 2020
    7. ↑ Oyez.org, Greenlaw v. United States, decided June 23, 2008
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 27,2023
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 27,2023
    11. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=United_States_v._Hansen&oldid=9660702"