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

18 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

Opinion of the Court 

since Congress enacted clause (iv)’s immediate predecessor.  
Instead, he offers a string of hypotheticals, all premised on 
the  expansive  ordinary  meanings  of  “encourage”  and  “in-
duce.”  In his view, clause (iv) would punish the author of 
an  op-ed  criticizing  the  immigration system,  “[a]  minister 
who welcomes undocumented people into the congregation 
and  expresses  the  community’s  love  and  support,”  and  a 
government official who instructs “undocumented members 
of the community to shelter in place during a natural disas-
ter.”  Brief for Respondent 16–19.  Yet none of Hansen’s ex-
amples are filtered through the elements of solicitation or 
facilitation—most importantly, the requirement (which we 
again repeat) that a defendant intend to bring about a spe-
cific result.  See, e.g., Rosemond, 572 U. S., at 76.  Clause 
(iv) does not have the scope Hansen claims, so it does not 
produce the horribles he parades. 
  To  the  extent  that  clause  (iv)  reaches  any  speech,  it 
stretches no further than speech integral to unlawful con-
duct.4  “[I]t has never been deemed an abridgement of free-
dom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal 
merely  because  the  conduct  was  in  part  initiated,  evi-
denced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, 
written, or printed.”  Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 
336 U. S. 490, 502 (1949).  Speech intended to bring about 
a particular unlawful act has no social value; therefore, it 
is unprotected.  Williams, 553 U. S., at 298.  We have ap-
plied this principle many times, including to the promotion  

—————— 

4 We also note that a number of clause (iv) prosecutions (like Hansen’s) 
are  predicated  on  fraudulent  representations  through  speech  for  per-
sonal  gain.    See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  Sineneng-Smith,  982  F. 3d  766, 
776 (CA9 2020); United States v. Kalu, 791 F. 3d 1194, 1198–1199 (CA10 
2015).  “[F]alse claims [that] are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys 
or other valuable considerations” are not protected by the First Amend-
ment.  United States v. Alvarez, 567 U. S. 709, 723 (2012) (plurality opin-
ion).  These examples increase the list of lawful applications.