Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 18

14 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

Opinion of the Court 

that a particular act be carried out.  Supra, at 6.  “Encour-
ages or  induces,”  however,  is  not  modified  by any  express 
intent  requirement.    Because  the  text  of  clause  (iv)  lacks 
that essential element, Hansen protests, it cannot possibly 
be limited to either solicitation or facilitation. 
  Once again, Hansen ignores the longstanding history of 
these  words.    When  Congress  transplants  a  common-law 
term,  the  “ ‘old  soil’ ”  comes  with  it.    Taggart  v.  Lorenzen, 
587  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2019)  (slip  op.,  at  5–6).    So  when 
Congress placed “encourages” and “induces” in clause (iv), 
the traditional intent associated with solicitation and facil-
itation was part of the package.  That, in fact, is precisely 
how the federal aiding-and-abetting statute works.  It con-
tains no express mens rea requirement, providing only that 
a person who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or 
procures”  a  federal  offense  is  “punishable  as  a  principal.”  
18 U. S. C. §2(a).  Yet, consistent with “a centuries-old view 
of culpability,” we have held that the statute implicitly in-
corporates the traditional state of mind required for aiding 
and abetting.  Rosemond v. United States, 572 U. S. 65, 70–
71 (2014). 
  Clause (iv) is situated among other provisions that work 
the same way.  Consider those that immediately follow it: 
The first makes it a crime to “engag[e] in any conspiracy to 
the  preceding  acts,”  8  U. S. C. 
commit  any  of 
§1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I),  and  the  second  makes  it  a  crime  to 
“ai[d] or abe[t] the commission of any of the preceding acts,” 
§1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II).    Neither  of  these  clauses  explicitly 
states an intent requirement.  Yet both conspiracy and aid-
ing  and  abetting  are  familiar  common-law  offenses  that 
contain a particular mens rea.  See Rosemond, 572 U. S., at 
76 (aiding and abetting); Ocasio v. United States, 578 U. S. 
282, 287–288 (2016) (conspiracy).  Take an obvious exam-
ple: If the words “aids or abets” in clause (v)(II) were con-
sidered in a vacuum, they could be read to cover a person 
who  inadvertently  helps  another  commit  a  §1324(a)(1)(A)