Posted on Mar 27, 2023
Immigration fraud case brings tough First Amendment questions to the Supreme Court
429
15
3
7
7
0
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/27/ [login to see] /supreme-court-immigration-free-speech
Look at the the Supreme Court's history, and you will see a lot of cases in which odious defendants bring tough First Amendment questions. Monday's case was one of those.
The issue was whether a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage or induce illegal immigration transforms some speech protected by the Constitution into a crime.
The defendant in this case is Helaman Hansen, who conned 471 noncitizens into believing that they could obtain U.S. citizenship through adult adoption. By enrolling these noncitizens in this nonexistent program, Hansen defrauded these people of more than $1.8 million. In 2017, a jury convicted him on 15 counts of mail and wire fraud, for which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. But it also found him guilty of two counts of encouraging or inducing these noncitizens to remain in the United States, and it is those two counts that were the focus of Monday's argument.
Look at the the Supreme Court's history, and you will see a lot of cases in which odious defendants bring tough First Amendment questions. Monday's case was one of those.
The issue was whether a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage or induce illegal immigration transforms some speech protected by the Constitution into a crime.
The defendant in this case is Helaman Hansen, who conned 471 noncitizens into believing that they could obtain U.S. citizenship through adult adoption. By enrolling these noncitizens in this nonexistent program, Hansen defrauded these people of more than $1.8 million. In 2017, a jury convicted him on 15 counts of mail and wire fraud, for which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. But it also found him guilty of two counts of encouraging or inducing these noncitizens to remain in the United States, and it is those two counts that were the focus of Monday's argument.
Immigration fraud case brings tough First Amendment questions to the Supreme Court
Posted from npr.org
Supreme Court
Immigration
Freedom of Speech
1st Amendment
Constitution
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."Look at the the Supreme Court's history, and you will see a lot of cases in which odious defendants bring tough First Amendment questions. Monday's case was one of those.
The issue was whether a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage or induce illegal immigration transforms some speech protected by the Constitution into a crime.
The defendant in this case is Helaman Hansen, who conned 471 noncitizens into believing that they could obtain U.S. citizenship through adult adoption. By enrolling these noncitizens in this nonexistent program, Hansen defrauded these people of more than $1.8 million. In 2017, a jury convicted him on 15 counts of mail and wire fraud, for which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. But it also found him guilty of two counts of encouraging or inducing these noncitizens to remain in the United States, and it is those two counts that were the focus of Monday's argument."...
..."Look at the the Supreme Court's history, and you will see a lot of cases in which odious defendants bring tough First Amendment questions. Monday's case was one of those.
The issue was whether a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage or induce illegal immigration transforms some speech protected by the Constitution into a crime.
The defendant in this case is Helaman Hansen, who conned 471 noncitizens into believing that they could obtain U.S. citizenship through adult adoption. By enrolling these noncitizens in this nonexistent program, Hansen defrauded these people of more than $1.8 million. In 2017, a jury convicted him on 15 counts of mail and wire fraud, for which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. But it also found him guilty of two counts of encouraging or inducing these noncitizens to remain in the United States, and it is those two counts that were the focus of Monday's argument."...
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I think this is going to center around the phrases "Integral to Criminal Conduct" or "Inciting Imminent Criminal Conduct" and the word "Fraud".
The Supreme Court has long held that those categories of speech are not protected under the 1st Amendment. Someone telling someone here illegally that they should stay wouldn't be "Integral to Criminal Conduct" the same way someone telling someone "They deserve to pay for what they did!" - Their view in the past has been, "Abstract advocacy of lawbreaking remains protected speech".
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held in the past that, "The government generally can impose liability for false advertising or on speakers who knowingly make factual misrepresentations to obtain money or some other material benefit". This seems to be very applicable to this individual without running afoul of stretching the prohibition of unprotected speech into a much more generalized view.
The Supreme Court has long held that those categories of speech are not protected under the 1st Amendment. Someone telling someone here illegally that they should stay wouldn't be "Integral to Criminal Conduct" the same way someone telling someone "They deserve to pay for what they did!" - Their view in the past has been, "Abstract advocacy of lawbreaking remains protected speech".
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held in the past that, "The government generally can impose liability for false advertising or on speakers who knowingly make factual misrepresentations to obtain money or some other material benefit". This seems to be very applicable to this individual without running afoul of stretching the prohibition of unprotected speech into a much more generalized view.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google