Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 45

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

13 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

that  Congress’s removal  of the primary  mens rea require-
ment was  deliberate.  And, when  this deliberate  choice  is 
considered  alongside  the  history  of  the  provision’s  signifi-
cant  expansions,  there  is  ample  cause  to  think  that  Con-
gress intended a substantive change in meaning. 

C 
  Other  features  of  the  encouragement  provision  (beyond 
its plain text and historical development) also suggest that 
Congress  did  not  mean  for  the  statute  to  be  construed  in 
accordance  with  established  characteristics  of  solicitation 
or  aiding  and  abetting.    These  features  further  highlight 
the  poor  fit between this statute and the narrow solicita-
tion/aiding-and-abetting  box  into  which the majority  tries 
to squeeze Congress’s broad language. 
  Recall that, in 1986, Congress made it a crime to encour-
age or induce a noncitizen not just to “come to” or “enter” 
the United States, but also to “reside” in this country.  100 
Stat. 3382; supra, at 8–9.5  As the majority notes, while it 
is  a crime  for  a  noncitizen  to enter  the  United  States  ille-
gally, it is generally not a crime—just a civil violation—to 
remain in the United States without lawful status, such as 
when a noncitizen overstays a visitor or student visa.  See 
Arizona  v.  United  States,  567  U. S.  387,  407  (2012);  see 
ante, at 19.  Thus, the encouragement provision on its face 

—————— 

5 As a side note: Congress’s addition of “reside” might seem to sweep in 
speakers who encouraged or induced noncitizens “who were already un-
lawfully  present  in  the  U. S.  to  continue  that  unlawful  presence.”    40 
F. 4th 1049, 1073, n. 1 (CA9 2022) (Collins, J., dissenting from denial of 
reh’g en banc).  But as Judge Collins explained, the provision is “most 
naturally read” to reach only “those who encourage or induce particular 
[noncitizens] to acquire an unlawful presence or residence that they do 
not already have.”  Ibid.  After all, “[o]ne does not normally speak of ‘in-
ducing’ another to do what he or she is already doing.”  Ibid.  And the 
principle of noscitur a sociis counsels in favor of such an understanding, 
given that “the first two listed verbs (‘come to’ and ‘enter’) plainly refer 
to such an acquisition.”  Ibid.