Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

1 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–179 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. 
HELAMAN HANSEN 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 23, 2023] 

  JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, 
dissenting. 
  At bottom, this case is about how to interpret a statute 
that prohibits “encourag[ing] or induc[ing]” a noncitizen “to 
come to, enter, or reside in the United States” unlawfully.  
8  U. S. C.  §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).    The  Court  reads  that  broad 
language as a narrow prohibition on the intentional solici-
tation or facilitation of a specific act of unlawful immigra-
tion—and it thereby avoids having to invalidate this statute 
under our  well-established  First  Amendment overbreadth 
doctrine.  But the majority departs from ordinary principles 
of  statutory  interpretation  to  reach  that  result.    Specifi-
cally,  it  rewrites  the  provision’s  text  to  include  elements 
that Congress once adopted but later removed as part of its 
incremental expansion of this particular criminal law over 
the last century. 
  It is neither our job nor our prerogative to retrofit federal 
statutes in a manner patently inconsistent with Congress’s 
choices.    Moreover,  by  acquiescing  to  the  Government’s 
newly minted pitch to narrow this statute in order to save 
it,1  the  majority  undermines  the  goal  of  the  overbreadth 
doctrine, which aims to keep overly broad statutes off the 
—————— 

1 Previously, even the Government rejected the majority’s view of the 
statute’s scope at trial, when it was seeking to convict the defendant.  See 
Part III, infra.