Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 21

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

harmony, not to manufacture conflict.3 

IV 
  Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) reaches no further than the pur-
poseful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to 
violate  federal  law.    So  understood,  the  statute  does  not 
“prohibi[t] a substantial amount of protected speech” rela-
tive to its “plainly legitimate sweep.”  Williams, 553 U. S., 
at 292. 
  Start with clause (iv)’s valid reach.  Hansen does not dis-
pute that the provision encompasses a great deal of nonex-
pressive  conduct—which  does  not  implicate  the  First 
Amendment at all.  Brief for Respondent 22–23.  Consider 
just a few examples: smuggling noncitizens into the coun-
try,  see  United  States  v.  Okatan,  728  F. 3d  111,  113–114 
(CA2 2013); United States v. Yoshida, 303 F. 3d 1145, 1148–
1151 (CA9 2002), providing counterfeit immigration docu-
ments, see United States v. Tracy, 456 Fed. Appx. 267, 269–
270  (CA4  2011)  (per curiam);  United  States  v.  Castillo- 
Felix,  539  F. 2d  9,  11  (CA9  1976),  and  issuing  fraudulent 
Social  Security  numbers  to  noncitizens,  see  Edwards  v. 
Prime,  Inc.,  602  F. 3d  1276,  1295–1297  (CA11  2010).    A 
brief survey of the Federal Reporter confirms that these are 
heartland clause (iv) prosecutions.  See 40 F. 4th, at 1072 
(opinion  of  Bumatay,  J.)  (listing  additional  examples,  in-
cluding  arranging  fraudulent  marriages  and  transporting 
noncitizens on boats).  So the “plainly legitimate sweep” of 
the provision is extensive. 
  When we turn to the other side of the ledger, we find it 
pretty much blank.  Hansen fails to identify a single prose-
cution  for  ostensibly  protected  expression  in  the  70  years 

—————— 

3 The  canon  of  constitutional  avoidance  is  a  problem  for  the  dissent.  
Attempting to overcome it, JUSTICE JACKSON suggests that the canon has 
less force in the context of an overbreadth challenge.  Post, at 17.  Our 
cases offer no support for that proposition.  In this context, as in others, 
ordinary principles of interpretation apply.