Supreme Court to Decide Whether It’s a Felony to Encourage Illegal Immigration

The Supreme Court is set to tackle a highly controversial issue this spring, as it reviews the constitutionality of a 1986 law that criminalizes the act of encouraging unauthorized immigrants to come to or stay in the United States, according to The New York Times.

The law has long been viewed as a violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, as it could turn everyday statements into felonies.

In the previous arguments presented in front of the Supreme Court three years ago, several justices raised concerns about the implications of the law.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. hypothesized whether a grandmother could be committing a crime if she were to tell her granddaughter, who is in the country illegally, that she missed her and encouraged her to stay.

Similarly, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wondered whether a charity that provided food to people who “can’t get it elsewhere” and “know that the people taking advantage of that are here unlawfully” would be committing a felony.

And Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned whether “the landlady who says to the person, ‘You always have a place here,’ knowing that that person is illegally in the United States” would also be considered a criminal.

Despite the justices’ concerns, the case was ultimately not decided on by the court, with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stating that the appeals court had overstepped its bounds by reaching out to address the First Amendment question without it having been raised by the parties, according to The Times.

Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case.

The defendant, Helaman Hansen, was convicted of violating the law, as well as mail and wire fraud, for charging large fees for a fake citizenship program through adult adoption.

Hansen’s convictions for encouraging immigrants to overstay their visas were overturned by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that the 1986 law was unconstitutional.

The law, according to the panel, is too broad and could apply to everyday statements and actions.

LATEST VIDEO