Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

Opinion of the Court 

his new parent.  Nailati signed up. 
  It was too good to be true.  There is no path to citizenship 
through “adult adoption,” so Nailati waited for months with 
nothing to show for it.  Faced with the expiration of his visa, 
he asked Hansen what to do.  Hansen advised him to stay: 
“[O]nce you’re in the program,” Hansen explained, “you’re 
safe.  Immigration cannot touch you.”  Id., at 92.  Believing 
that citizenship was around the corner, Nailati took Han-
sen’s advice and remained in the country unlawfully. 
  Hansen peddled his scam to other noncitizens too.  After 
hearing about the program from their pastor, one husband 
and  wife  met  with  Hansen  and  wrote  him  a  check  for 
$9,000—initially saved for  a  payment  on  a  house  in  Mex-
ico—so that they could participate.  Another noncitizen paid 
Hansen out of savings he had accumulated over 21 years as 
a  housepainter.    Still  others  borrowed  from  relatives  and 
friends.  All told, Hansen lured over 450 noncitizens into his 
program, and he raked in nearly $2 million as a result. 
  The  United  States  charged  Hansen  with  (among  other 
crimes) violations of §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).  That clause forbids 
“encourag[ing]  or  induc[ing]  an  alien  to  come  to, enter,  or 
reside  in  the United  States,  knowing  or  in  reckless  disre-
gard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is 
or will be in violation of law.”  In addition to convicting him 
under clause (iv), the jury found that Hansen had acted “for 
the purpose of  private financial  gain,” triggering  a  higher 
maximum penalty.  App. 116; see §1324(a)(1)(B)(i). 
  After  the  verdict  came  in,  Hansen  saw  a  potential  way 
out.    Another  case  involving  §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv),  United 
States  v.  Sineneng-Smith,  was  pending  before  the  Ninth 
Circuit, which had sua sponte raised the question whether 
the clause was an unconstitutionally overbroad restriction 
of speech.  910 F. 3d 461, 469 (2018).  Taking his cue from 
Sineneng-Smith, Hansen  moved to  dismiss  the  clause  (iv) 
charges  on  First  Amendment  overbreadth  grounds.    The 
District  Court  rejected Hansen’s  argument  and  sentenced