This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (United States), the case concerns whether speech that proposes an unlawful transaction, even if false, is protected by the First Amendment.
According to Petitioner (United States), the United States argues that such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
According to General Clement, the respondent argues that the statute also targets conduct where the speaker knowingly misleads about the reality of the offered material.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Souter asked whether there is still an indictable offense.
Justice Ginsburg asked for clarification of footnote 4, which states that the statute’s proscription encompasses non‑commercial speech.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to Petitioner (United States), speech that proposes an unlawful transaction, or falsely proposes one, is not protected by the First Amendment.
Williams (Respondent)
According to General Clement, if the scienter requirements are satisfied and the defendant knowingly tries to make the listener believe the offered thing is real, the statute targets that conduct.
What happened at oral argument
Richard J. Diaz argued on behalf of the respondent.
Diaz stated that the statute carries a five‑year mandatory minimum prison term and a possible twenty‑year prison term.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 11b3dd81dc3ccf338de6-r1-f22ed9248edc2d65.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.