United States v. Hansen
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in United States v. Hansen and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of United States v. Hansen.
In United States v. Hansen, the Supreme Court addressed whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment. The Court concluded that the statute forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law. The Ninth Circuit's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in United States v. Hansen.
The Court held that § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is not unconstitutionally overbroad as it targets only specific unlawful acts.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in United States v. Hansen. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to United States v. Hansen
The case primarily addresses whether a statute is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment by potentially punishing protected speech.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Hansen was convicted and moved to dismiss the clause (iv) charges on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.
-
Why Void for Vagueness is relevant to United States v. Hansen
The Court examines whether the terms 'encourage' and 'induce' in the statute are used in a specialized legal sense, which affects the statute's clarity and potential vagueness.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The issue here is whether Congress used 'encourage' and 'induce' in clause (iv) as terms of art referring to criminal solicitation and facilitation.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in United States v. Hansen that support the summary and concepts above.
Because § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specifc acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad.
Hansen's First Amendment overbreadth challenge rests on the claim that clause (iv) punishes so much protected speech that it cannot be applied to anyone, including him.
The Court holds that clause (iv) uses 'encourages or induces' in its specialized, criminal-law sense—that is, as incorporating common-law liability for solicitation and facilitation.
