Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

Opinion of the Court 

(iv) reaches some expression that is outside the speech-in-
tegral-to-unlawful-conduct  exception.    Of  course,  “that 
speech is not categorically unprotected does not mean it is 
immune  from  regulation,  but  only  that  ordinary  First 
Amendment  scrutiny  would  apply.”    Brief  for  Respondent 
44. 
  We  need  not  address  this  novel  theory,  because  even  if 
Hansen  is  right,  his  overbreadth  challenge  fails.    To  suc-
ceed, he has to show that clause (iv)’s overbreadth is “sub-
stantial . . . relative to [its] plainly legitimate sweep.”  Wil-
liams,  553  U. S.,  at  292.    As  we  have  discussed,  the 
provision has a wide legitimate reach insofar as it applies 
to nonexpressive conduct and speech soliciting or facilitat-
ing criminal violations of immigration law.  Even assuming 
that clause (iv) reaches some protected speech, and even as-
suming that its application to all of that speech is unconsti-
tutional, the ratio of unlawful-to-lawful applications is not 
lopsided enough to justify the “strong medicine” of facial in-
validation  for  overbreadth.    Broadrick  v.  Oklahoma,  413 
U. S. 601, 613 (1973).  In other words, Hansen asks us to 
throw out too much of the good based on a speculative shot 
at the bad.  This is not the stuff of overbreadth—as-applied 
challenges can take it from here. 

* 

  * 
  The  judgment  of  the  Ninth  Circuit  is  reversed,  and  the 
case  is  remanded  for  further  proceedings  consistent  with 
this opinion. 

  * 

It is so ordered.