October Term 2022 · Docket 22-179

Does a federal law criminalizing the inducement of illegal residence violate the First Amendment?

The government argues the law targets fraud. Hansen argues it punishes protected speech.

Official caption
United States v. Hansen
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Fletcher argued Hansen induced noncitizens to stay illegally for financial gain.

    Bhandari argued the government concedes the statute is unconstitutional as written.

    Bhandari claimed the government seeks to rewrite the law to target only solicitation.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Hansen faces charges for inducing noncitizens to stay in the U.S. illegally. He claims this law violates his free speech rights. The government says the law targets criminal conduct, not speech.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 27, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the Court to uphold Hansen's conviction.

Hansen wants the Court to reverse his conviction.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues the statute targets criminal inducement, not protected speech.

Hansen argues the statute criminalizes protected speech and is unconstitutionally broad.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kavanaugh asked how to handle potential jury instruction errors.

Justice Sotomayor asked about prosecutions of lawyers advising clients on legal consequences.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between criminal conduct and protected speech. It determines whether laws can punish advice that encourages illegal status. The outcome shapes future prosecutions of immigration-related speech.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON