Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

16 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

readily  susceptible  to  the  majority’s  narrowing  construc-
tion. 

III 
  The majority nevertheless revises the statute, leaning on 
the canon of constitutional avoidance.  Ante, at 16–17.7  But 
that canon “comes into play only when, after the application 
of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to be sus-
ceptible of more than one construction.”  Jennings v. Rodri-
guez, 583 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 12) (internal quo-
tation marks omitted).  It does not give the Court license “to 
rewrite a statute as it pleases.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 14).  
And, here, for the reasons explained above, it is clear that 
the majority has mounted “a serious invasion of the legisla-
tive domain.”  Stevens, 559 U. S., at 481 (internal quotation 
marks omitted).  The majority’s rescue mission is especially 
problematic  because  it  is  taking  place  in  the  context  of  a 
First  Amendment  challenge  to  a  statute  on  overbreadth 
grounds, as explained below. 

A 
  Overbreadth  challenges  are  an  “exception  to  the  usual 
rules  governing  standing,”  a  variation  the  Court  has  long 
permitted in recognition of the “danger of tolerating, in the 
area of First Amendment freedoms, the existence of a penal 
statute susceptible of sweeping and improper application.”  
Dombrowski,  380  U. S.,  at  486–487  (internal  quotation 
marks  omitted).    Absent  overbreadth  doctrine,  “the  con-
tours  of  regulation[s]”  that  impinge  on  the  freedom  of 
speech “would have to be hammered out case by case—and 

—————— 

7 The majority implies that constitutional avoidance is a backup argu-
ment.  Ante, at 16 (suggesting that its reading of the statute is the “best 
one”).  But, in my view, the text and history of the encouragement provi-
sion make it hard to get even close to the majority’s narrow reading with-
out substantial reliance on the constitutional-avoidance principle.