Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–179 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. 
HELAMAN HANSEN 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 23, 2023] 

  JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. 
  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  judg-
ment)  (slip  op.,  at  2)  (quoting  United  States  v.  Sineneng-
Smith,  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, re-
laxes  the  traditional  standard  for  facial  challenges,”  and 
distorts the judicial role.  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 9). 
  There is no question that the First Amendment does not 
shield  respondent’s  scheme  from  prosecution  under  8 
U. S. C.  §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv),  which  prohibits  “encourag[ing] 
or  induc[ing]  an  alien  to  come  to,  enter,  or  reside  in  the 
United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact 
that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in vio-
lation of law.”  Respondent defrauded nearly 500 aliens by 
telling them that they could become U. S. citizens through