Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

him. 
  While  Hansen’s  appeal  was  pending,  the  Ninth  Circuit 
held  in  Sineneng-Smith  that  clause (iv) is  unconstitution-
ally overbroad.  Id., at 467–468.  That holding was short-
lived: We vacated the judgment, explaining that the panel’s 
choice  to  inject the overbreadth  issue  into the  appeal  and 
appoint amici to argue it “departed so drastically from the 
principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of 
discretion.”    590  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2020)  (slip  op.,  at  3).    On 
remand, limited to the arguments that Sineneng-Smith had 
actually made, the Ninth Circuit affirmed her convictions.  
982 F. 3d 766, 770 (2020).  But Hansen’s appeal was wait-
ing in the wings, giving the Ninth Circuit a second chance 
to address the overbreadth question.  It reprised its original 
holding in Sineneng-Smith. 
  As  in  Sineneng-Smith,  the  Ninth  Circuit  focused  on 
whether clause (iv) is a narrow prohibition covering solici-
tation and facilitation of illegal conduct, or a sweeping ban 
that  would  pull  in  “statements  or  conduct  that  are  likely 
repeated countless times across the country every day.”  25 
F. 4th 1103, 1110 (2022).  It adopted the latter interpreta-
tion, asserting that clause (iv) criminalizes speech such as 
“encouraging an undocumented immigrant to take shelter 
during  a  natural  disaster,  advising  an  undocumented  im-
migrant  about  available  social  services,  telling  a  tourist 
that she is unlikely to face serious consequences if she over-
stays  her tourist  visa, or providing  certain  legal  advice  to 
undocumented immigrants.”  Ibid.  Concluding that clause 
(iv) covers an “ ‘alarming’ ” amount of protected speech rela-
tive to its narrow legitimate sweep, the Ninth Circuit held 
the provision facially overbroad.  Ibid. 
  The  Ninth  Circuit  denied the Government’s  petition for 
rehearing  en  banc  over  the  dissent  of  nine  judges.   Judge 
Bumatay,  who  wrote  the  principal  dissent,  attributed  the 
panel’s overbreadth concern to a misreading of the statute.