Is it a crime or freedom of speech for someone to “encourage” immigrants to come to this country illegally, or to stay here after their visa has expired?

The Supreme Court grappled with that question on Monday in the case of a Sacramento man who charged immigrants $500 to $10,000 and falsely promised he would help them get U.S. citizenship.

He was convicted of 15 counts of fraud and two counts of encouraging two immigrants to overstay their visas.

That last charge earned him a partial acquittal before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and it clashed the immigration law with the 1st Amendment before the Supreme Court.

Since 1952, it has been a crime under federal law to “encourage or induce an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or recklessly in contempt” that doing so would be illegal are.

Referring to those broad words, the 9th Circuit ruled that the provision violated the 1st Amendment because it could be read to make it a crime for relatives or friends to encourage anyone to come to or stay in this country

illegal

. The appeals court upheld the 15 charges of fraud against the defendant, Helaman Hansen, and a 20-year prison sentence.

The judges agreed to hear the government defend the “encourage” provision of the law, and most of them sounded skeptical of the free speech claim, at least in this case.

“He sought out and defrauded immigrants. He took advantage of very vulnerable people,” said Judge Neil M. Gorsuch. “This law has been on the books for 50 years.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed, noting that there is no record of the law being used to prosecute innocent people for encouraging immigrants to stay in this country.

But the court’s liberals said they saw a potential problem of free speech.

“This statute criminalizes words,” said Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Elena Kagan agreed to the law

‘s wording

is so broad that it could threaten everyday conversations. What if a lawyer, doctor or neighbor advises someone to stay in this country even if they don’t have papers, she asked.

“They say, ‘I really think you should stay.’ What is happening?” she told Deputy Attorney General Brian Fletcher.

He replied that the government has not and will not prosecute people for such family or friendly conversations. If such a case arises, he added, the defendant must invoke the First Amendment in his defense.

He urged the court not to remove the “encourage or induce” provision just because it could potentially be abused in future cases.

Several judges also noted that Hansen may be entitled to a new trial for part of his case because the jury’s instructions were flawed.

The case was United States vs. Hansen, and a written opinion can be expected at the end of June.