Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 52

20 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

kinds  of  turnabouts  might  well  be  chalked  up  to  institu-
tional incentives and coordination challenges in a massive 
prosecutorial  system.    But  given  these  dynamics,  the  an-
swer  to  whether  the  Government  has,  as  of  today,  prose-
cuted Hansen’s hypothetical scenarios may understandably 
provide cold comfort to those living and working with immi-
grants. 
  In any event, it makes little sense for the number of un-
constitutional prosecutions to be the litmus test for whether 
speech is being chilled by a facially overbroad statute.  The 
number  of  people  who  have  not  exercised  their  right  to 
speak out of fear of prosecution is, quite frankly, unknowa-
ble. 
  Moreover, criminal prosecutions are not the only method 
by which statutes can be wielded to chill free speech.  Han-
sen’s  amici  detail  how  Customs  and  Border  Protection 
(CBP) relied on the encouragement provision to justify its 
creation of a “watchlist” of potential speakers that CBP had 
compiled in connection with its monitoring of a large group 
of migrants—a list that included journalists simply report-
ing  factual  information  about  the  group’s  progress.    Brief 
for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press as Ami-
cus Curiae 5–6.  CBP allegedly compiled dossiers on those 
reporters and singled them out as targets for special screen-
ings.  Ibid.  There can be no doubt that this kind of Govern-
ment surveillance—targeted at journalists reporting on an 
important  topic  of  public  concern,  no  less—tends  to  chill 
speech, even though it falls short of an actual prosecution. 
  Hansen’s amici also describe how a group of Members of 
Congress recently sent a letter to three religious organiza-
tions that help undocumented immigrants, directing the or-

—————— 
See Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U. S. 306, 316–317 (2023); Percoco v. 
United States, 598 U. S. 319, 332–333 (2023); Dubin v. United States, 599 
U. S. ___, ___–___ (2023) (slip op., at 2–3).