Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 42

10 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

  The majority first points out that the 1885 version of the 
encouragement  provision  criminalized  “knowingly  assist-
ing, encouraging or soliciting” certain immigration.  §3, 23 
Stat.  333  (emphasis  added);  see  ante,  at  11.    Because  the 
term  “encouraging”  was  placed  alongside  “assisting”  and 
“soliciting” in this precursor provision, the majority main-
tains that the term “encouraging” is narrowed by the canon 
of  noscitur  a  sociis,  “which  counsels  that  a  word  is  given 
more precise content by the neighboring words with which 
it  is  associated.”   Williams,  553  U. S.,  at  294; see  ante,  at 
11.  In Williams, the Court (in an opinion by Justice Scalia) 
reasoned that, “[w]hen taken in isolation,” the broad term 
is  “susceptible  of  multiple  and  wide- 
“ ‘promotes’ ” 
ranging meanings,” but that, “in a list that includes ‘solic-
its,’ ‘distributes,’ and ‘advertises,’ [it] is most sensibly read 
to mean the act of recommending purported child pornog-
raphy to another person for his acquisition.”  553 U. S., at 
294–295. 
  But,  as  the  majority  here  ultimately  goes  on  to 
acknowledge, ante, at 12, the statutory word “encouraging” 
was not actually accompanied by the narrower terms “solic-
iting” and “assisting” throughout the course of this statute’s 
history.  And for the history to be meaningfully referenced, 
the state of the statute must be considered over time, not 
just at particular points in which words that seem to sup-
port a particular reading might have appeared.  The delta 
between the purportedly narrow version of the statute that 
the majority points to, and what later happened to the stat-
utory text, is important—and there is no dispute that Con-
gress  later  removed  the  terms  “soliciting”  and  “assisting” 
from  the  encouragement  provision,  leaving  “encouraging” 
and “inducing” to stand “in isolation,” 553 U. S., at 294.  See 
ante,  at  13.    Tracing  the  history  over  time  clearly  estab-
lishes that Congress deleted the very narrowing terms that