EXHIBIT INDEX TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

United State of America v. Michael Lacey, et al.

2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH

Exhibit Description

A June 27, 2023 Notice of Supplemental Authority in Woodhull Freedom 

Foundation v. United States 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1630-1 Filed 07/06/23 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1630-1 Filed 07/06/23 Page 2 of 4
1

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Appellate Staff

202-305-1754

Joseph.F.Busa@usdoj.gov

VIA CM/ECF

June 27, 2023

Mark J. Langer, Clerk of Court

United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit

333 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20001

RE: Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States (No. 22-5105)

Dear Mr. Langer:

The government writes pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 28(j) regarding the Supreme Court’s recent decision in

United States v. Hansen, -- S. Ct. --, 2023 WL 4138994 (2023). 

Hansen addressed the scope of the criminal prohibition on

“encourag[ing]” or “induc[ing]” a noncitizen to remain in the United 

States in violation of the law, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). The Court 

explained that statute “uses ‘encourages or induces’ in its specialized, 

criminal-law sense,” rather than its broader general sense. 2023 WL 

4138994, at *7. The Court emphasized that criminal “solicitation and 

facilitation,” “also called aiding and abetting,” are “longstanding 

criminal theories” and the that “[t]he use of both verbs”— “encourage” 

and “induce”—“to describe solicitation and facilitation is widespread[.]” 

Id. at *6 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary, the Model Penal Code, and 

federal and state statutes). The Court further explained that, “when a 

criminal-law term is used in a criminal-law statute, that—in and of 

itself—is a good clue that it takes its criminal-law meaning.” Id. at *7. 

It observed that “the inference is even stronger here, because [the 

statute] prohibits ‘encouraging’ and ‘inducing’ a violation of law.” Id.

USCA Case #22-5105 Document #2005285 Filed: 06/27/2023 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1630-1 Filed 07/06/23 Page 3 of 4
2

The Court noted that “the canon of constitutional avoidance” also 

counseled in favor of that interpretation. Id. at *10. Construing the 

statute in light of these interpretive principles, the Court held that the 

statute was not facially overbroad. “To the extent that [the statute] 

reaches any speech, it stretches no further than speech integral to 

unlawful conduct,” which, like the “promotion” of a particular piece of 

contraband, “is unprotected.” Id. at *11.

The same principles strongly support affirmance in this case. The 

statute at issue here is a criminal prohibition on operating an 

interactive computer service with the intent to “promote” or “facilitate” 

the prostitution of another person, 18 U.S.C. § 2421A(a). Those terms 

are used in accord with their specialized criminal-law meanings for the 

same reasons discussed by the Court in Hansen in holding that the 

terms “encourage” and “induce” are to be read in their specialized

criminal-law senses. See Response Br. 23-32, 37-45.

Sincerely, 

/s/ Joseph F. Busa

JOSEPH F. BUSA

Counsel for the United States of America 

and Attorney General Garland

cc: all counsel (via CM/ECF)

USCA Case #22-5105 Document #2005285 Filed: 06/27/2023 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1630-1 Filed 07/06/23 Page 4 of 4