Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 53

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

21 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

ganizations to preserve documents and communications re-
lated to their work in advance of a potential congressional 
investigation  into  whether  such  organizations  are  “ ‘har-
bor[ing], transport[ing], and encourag[ing] ’ ” noncitizens to 
settle unlawfully in this country.  Brief for Religious Organ-
izations as Amici Curiae 34 (emphasis added).  Again, this 
kind of letter invoking the language of the encouragement 
provision  can  plainly  chill  speech,  even  though  it  is  not  a 
prosecution (and, for that matter, even if a formal investi-
gation never materializes). 
  The  majority  nevertheless  derides  the  fears  of  Hansen 
and  his  amici  as  an  overimaginative  “parad[e]”  of  “horri-
bles.”    Ante,  at  18.    But  what  may  seem  “fanciful”  to  this 
Court at great remove, ante, at 5, might well prove to be a 
significant  obstacle  for  those  on  the  ground  who  operate 
daily in the shadow of the law.  The “gravity” of the encour-
agement  provision’s  chilling  effect  is  “underscored  by  the 
filings of . . . amici curiae in support of ” Hansen—including 
briefs  from  lawyers,  immigration  advocacy  organizations, 
religious and other charitable organizations, journalists, lo-
cal  governments,  and  nonprofit  policy  institutions  from 
across the ideological spectrum.  Americans for Prosperity 
Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 
17). 
  The  substantial  concerns  that  amici  from  such  diverse 
walks of life raise illustrate that the “deterrent effect feared 
by”  Hansen and  his  amici  “is real  and  pervasive.”   Id.,  at 
___ (slip op., at 18).  Moreover, at the end of the day, those 
fears reflect a determination to view enacted statutes as se-
rious  business,  and,  essentially,  to  take  Congress  at  its 
word.  This Court should have done the same. 
  As  written,  the  encouragement  provision  is  overbroad.  
Therefore, it should have been deemed facially unconstitu-
tional  and  invalid  under  the  First  Amendment,  as  the 
Ninth Circuit held.