Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 8

4 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

Opinion of the Court 

See  40  F. 4th  1049,  1057–1058  (2022).    Correctly  inter-
preted, he explained, clause (iv) reaches only criminal solic-
itation and aiding and abetting.  Ibid.  On that reading, the 
provision raises no overbreadth problem because, “[e]ven if 
§1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) somehow reaches protected speech, that 
reach is far outweighed by the provision’s broad legitimate 
sweep.”  Id., at 1072. 
  We granted certiorari.  598 U. S. ___ (2022). 

II 
  The  First  Amendment  provides  that  “Congress  shall 
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”  Wisely, 
Hansen does not claim that the First Amendment protects 
the communications for which he was prosecuted.  Cf. Illi-
nois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 
U. S.  600,  612  (2003)  (“[T]he  First  Amendment  does  not 
shield fraud”).  Instead, he raises an overbreadth challenge: 
He  argues  that  clause  (iv)  punishes  so  much  protected 
speech that it cannot be applied to anyone, including him.  
Brief for Respondent 9–10. 
  An overbreadth challenge is unusual.  For one thing, liti-
gants  typically  lack  standing  to  assert  the  constitutional 
rights of third parties.  See, e.g., Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 
400,  410  (1991).    For  another,  litigants  mounting  a  facial 
challenge to a statute normally “must establish that no set 
of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be 
valid.”  United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987) 
(emphasis added).  Breaking from both of these rules, the 
overbreadth doctrine instructs a court to hold a statute fa-
cially  unconstitutional  even  though  it  has  lawful  applica-
tions, and even at the behest of someone to whom the stat-
ute can be lawfully applied. 
  We have justified this doctrine on the ground that it pro-
vides breathing room for free expression.  Overbroad laws 
“may deter or ‘chill’ constitutionally protected speech,” and 
if  would-be  speakers  remain  silent,  society  will  lose  their