Page:United States v. Hansen.pdf/25

Rh

, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to emphasize how far afield the facial overbreadth doctrine has carried the Judiciary from its constitutional role. The facial overbreadth doctrine “purports to grant federal courts the power to invalidate a law” that is constitutional as applied to the party before it “ ‘if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’ ” Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (, concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 2) (quoting United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (, concurring) (slip op., at 1)). As I have explained, this doctrine “lacks any basis in the text or history of the First Amendment, relaxes the traditional standard for facial challenges,” and distorts the judicial role. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 9).

There is no question that the First Amendment does not shield respondent’s scheme from prosecution under 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which prohibits “encourag[ing] or induc[ing] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” Respondent defrauded nearly 500 aliens by telling them that they could become U. S. citizens through