Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

4 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

particular piece of purported child pornography with the in-
tent of initiating a transfer” is properly proscribed by fed-
eral statute.  Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted); see 
also, e.g., Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234, 
253 (2002) (“The mere tendency of speech to encourage un-
lawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it”). 

B 
  The  Government  does  not  dispute  that  the  encourage-
ment provision is unconstitutional as overbroad if it is read 
according to its plain text, thereby reaching these various 
fact  patterns.    This  point  is  worth  repeating:  Under  the 
broad  interpretation  of  the  statute,  the  Government  does 
not even attempt to argue that the unconstitutional appli-
cations in category one are not “substantial,” Stevens, 559 
U. S., at 473, in relation to the constitutional applications 
that fall in category two.2  Rather, the Government argues 
that the statute can be saved from falling victim to today’s 
overbreadth challenge by construing the broad terms of the 
encouragement  provision  narrowly—and,  in  particular, 
reading  them  as  authorizing  prosecution  only  for  solicita-
tion or facilitation. 
  Citing this Court’s general duty “to seek harmony, not to 
manufacture conflict,” when “legislation and the Constitu-
tion brush up against each other,” ante, at 16–17, the ma-
jority obliges.  But this Court also has a duty to refrain from 
taking the legislative reins and revising the text of a stat-
ute.  It is well established that “[w]e will not rewrite a law 
to conform it to constitutional requirements.”  Stevens, 559 
U. S., at 481 (emphasis added; alterations and internal quo-
tation marks omitted).  Accordingly, and in the overbreadth 

—————— 

2 There is accordingly no need to dwell on the contents of category two 
here.  The majority discusses several examples, like “issuing fraudulent 
Social Security numbers to noncitizens.”  Ante, at 17 (citing Edwards v. 
Prime, Inc., 602 F. 3d 1276, 1295–1297 (CA11 2010)).