Posted on 02/25/2020 1:34:20 PM PST by Stravinsky
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed doubtful that a 1986 federal law that makes it a crime to “encourage” unauthorized immigrants to come to or stay in the United States could be squared with the First Amendment.
“The statute isn’t aimed at speech,” said Eric J. Feigin, a lawyer for the federal government defending the law.
But several justices appeared skeptical, saying that the ordinary meaning of the word “encourage” could subject countless people to criminal liability.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked about “a grandmother whose granddaughter is in the United States illegally.” Would it be a crime, he wanted to know, if she told her granddaughter, “I hope you will stay because, you know, I will miss you; things will not get better if you go back, so I encourage you to stay.
Mr. Feigin said the court should read the law narrowly to protect such statements. “Something that abstract and attenuated is not going to be criminal complicity,” he said.
The examples kept coming. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh asked about charities providing food to unauthorized immigrants. Mr. Feigin said that might be covered by the law, subjecting the charity to prosecution.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked about “the landlady who says to the person, ‘You always have a place here,’ knowing that that person is illegally in the United States.”
“Or, you know, we can list universities, church groups — I mean, you name it — sanctuary cities,” he continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yes, it is. Next case...
Roberts will vote against this one. Look for a 5-4 loss
“I think everyone should go out and rob a bank”.
Is that Free Speech, Supreme Court? Or did I just yell “fire” in a movie house?
Action should result in prosectution, not words. Offering a bed, offering food, offering a job, etc. Conspiring to connect an illegal with help to enter or stay is action that should be prosecuted.
They really have lost their way from the TRUTH.
This reminds me of Bill Clintons' famous defense to his indictment by saying "It depends of what 'IS' is!"
I would tend to agree with you on this one.
It’s called being an accessory.
This justice department lawyer is an idiot.
Not to say private individuals shouldn’t be held responsible, but there are plenty of crimes committed daily where a felon is arrested in the presence of some other person, either in their home or car, and that person walks off with no charges.
His answer should have been that this law should be intended for any local, state, or federal agent or employee acting in their official capacity, to encourage this type of activity.
Last thing I knew, encouraging someone to commit, or even helping them to commit a crime was considered being an accessory to that crime. And these same individuals should be charged with obstructing federal agencies from being able to do their job of enforcing those laws.
Yes I agree we’re going to lose this one. Never forget Roberts smacked down AZ for enforcing federal immigration laws. Besides he does not want to upset the dumb Latina again.
The wise and fat Latina put the fear of refried beans into him
Why is suborning perjury a crime, too?
-PJ
As far as I'm concerned Roberts' is a compromised judge and Obama has his B@lls in a glass jar somewhere.
I dare anyone to ‘encourage’ people not to pay their taxes, and then see where the court comes down on the issue.
That’s my take on it as well
“What about the grandma who says, we’ll all be better off without grandpa, wink wink”?
And then they kill grandpa.
Of course it’s a damn crime!
It certainly should be a crime for any government official to encourage mass criminality.
And these are our Supreme Judges! Makes me sick!
Is Whoppi Goldberg on the court? Rape? Rape?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.