In a 7-to-2 decision, the court gave a narrow reading to a statute that made it a crime to encourage unauthorized immigrants to come to or stay in the United States.
The Supreme Court avoided a difficult First Amendment question on Friday, ruling that an unusual 1986 federal law that makes it a crime to “encourage” or “induce” unauthorized immigrants to come to or stay in the United States should be read narrowly to require complicity in a criminal conduct.
A broader interpretation of the law would give rise to constitutional concerns, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority in the 7-to-2 decision. She added that the law’s key words were terms of art used in a “specialized, criminal-law sense” and mean something different than they do in ordinary usage. For purposes of the law, she wrote, the terms require proof of solicitation or facilitation of a crime.
When the case was argued in March, several justices asked questions about the law’s sweep, given the usual meaning of “encourage.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about a grandmother living in the United States without authorization. “The grandmother tells her son she’s worried about the burden she’s putting on the family,” the justice said. “And the son says: ‘Abuelita, you are never a burden to us. If you want to continue living here with us, your grandchildren love having you.’”
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh asked about charitable organizations. “There’s still going to be a chill or a threat of prosecution for them for providing food and shelter and aid and recommending people for scholarships,” he said.
