Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

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 BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court. 
  A federal law prohibits “encourag[ing] or induc[ing]” ille-
gal  immigration.    8  U. S. C.  §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).    After  con-
cluding  that  this  statute  criminalizes  immigration  advo-
cacy and other protected speech, the Ninth Circuit held it 
unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.  
That was error.  Properly interpreted, this provision forbids 
only the intentional solicitation or facilitation of certain un-
lawful acts.  It does not “prohibi[t] a substantial amount of 
protected speech”—let alone enough to justify throwing out 
the law’s “plainly legitimate sweep.”  United States v. Wil-
liams, 553 U. S. 285, 292 (2008).  We reverse. 

I 
  In  2014,  Mana  Nailati,  a  citizen  of  Fiji,  heard  that  he 
could  become  a  U. S.  citizen  through  an  “adult  adoption” 
program  run  by  Helaman  Hansen.    Eager  for  citizenship, 
Nailati flew to California to pursue the program.  Hansen’s 
wife told Nailati that adult adoption was the “quickest and 
easiest  way  to  get  citizenship  here  in  America.”    App. 88.  
For $4,500, Hansen’s organization would arrange Nailati’s 
adoption, and he could then inherit U. S. citizenship from