Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

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

9 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

violate the  immigration  laws—while  inserting a  mens  rea 
requirement  for  knowledge  or  reckless  disregard  of  the 
noncitizen’s immigration status.  See Immigration Reform 
and Control Act of 1986, §112(a), 100 Stat. 3381–3382.  Sim-
ultaneously, and for the first time, Congress made it a crime 
to  encourage  or  induce  an  unauthorized  noncitizen  not 
merely to enter the United States, but also to encourage or 
induce such a person to “reside” here unlawfully.  Ibid. 
  Finally, in 1996, Congress crafted a separate penalty en-
hancement  for  certain  kinds  of  violations.    It  raised  the 
maximum punishment from 5 years to 10 years of impris-
onment  if  the  offender  violates  the  encouragement  provi-
sion  “for  the  purpose  of  commercial  advantage  or  private 
financial  gain.”    §1324(a)(1)(B)(i);  see  Illegal  Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, §203(a), 
110 Stat. 3009–565. 
  As  these  developments  illustrate,  Congress  has  repeat-
edly  revisited  the  scope  of  the  encouragement  provision.  
And, in so doing, it has consistently expanded the reach and 
severity of this criminal law from its modest 1885 origins.  
Most  notably,  the  particular  amendments  that  Congress 
has made to the encouragement provision demonstrate its 
intent to specifically reject the pillars of the majority’s hold-
ing. 
  To reiterate: The terms “solicit” and “assist” appeared in 
the  text  of  the  statute  between  1885  and  1952,  at  which 
point Congress removed them.  Likewise, between 1952 and 
1986, violating this statute required that the speaker “will-
fully  or  knowingly”  encourage  or  induce  a  noncitizen  to 
transgress  the  immigration  laws.    But  in  1986,  Congress 
deleted this primary mens rea requirement. 

2 
  The  majority’s  efforts  to  spin  the  encouragement  provi-
sion’s enlightening enactment history in favor of the major-
ity’s narrow interpretation are unavailing.