Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

7 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

a particular unlawful act,” ante, at 6 (emphasis added).  But 
the  encouragement  provision  hints  at  no  such  thing.    It 
simply prohibits “encourag[ing] or induc[ing]” a noncitizen 
“to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing 
or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, en-
try,  or  residence  is  or  will  be  in  violation  of  law.”  
§1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).  Nor does the ordinary meaning of “en-
courages or induces” carry the intent requirement that so-
licitation and facilitation do: By describing the attractions 
of  my  hometown,  for  instance,  I  might  end  up  inducing  a 
listener to move there, even if that was not my intent. 
  It  is  also  telling  that  the  very  next  subdivision  of 
§1324(a)(1)(A)  expressly  prohibits  “aid[ing]  or  abet[ting] 
the 
the  preceding  acts.”  
§1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II).    That  provision  indicates  that  Con-
gress knows how to create an aiding-and-abetting prohibi-
tion  when  it  wants  to—and  that  it  did  not  do  so  in 
§1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).3 
  The majority’s mere observation that the encouragement 
provision’s terms are used to define solicitation and facili-
tation is thus insufficient to establish that the terms mean 
the same thing or incorporate the same features. 

commission  of  any  of 

B 
  The  majority  next  turns  to  “[s]tatutory  history”  to  sup-
port its transformation of the broad encouragement provi-
sion  that  Congress  wrote  into  a  narrow  solicitation  or  
aiding-and-abetting prohibition.  Ante, at 11.  I agree that 
the history of a statute can reveal Congress’s intent to use 
terms  in  a  narrower  or  specialized  manner.    But,  here 

—————— 

3 This is not a surplusage argument.  Cf. ante, at 15, n. 2.  I agree with 
the majority that clause (iv) and clause (v)(II) have different aims.  My 
point, instead, is that Congress’s failure to use the classic “aids or abets” 
language in clause (iv), which it deploys just next door in clause (v)(II), 
should give us pause before concluding that we can read clause (iv) as if 
it included the same terms.