United States v. Sineneng-smith
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 7, 2020 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- May 7, 2020
- Term
- October Term 2019
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
OCTOBER TERM, 2019 371 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 19–67. Argued February 25, 2020—Decided May 7, 2020 Respondent Evelyn Sineneng-Smith operated an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California. She assisted clients working without authorization in the United States to file applications for a labor- certifcation program that once provided a path for aliens to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. Sineneng-Smith knew that her cli- ents could not meet the long-passed statutory application-fling deadline, but she nonetheless charged each client over $6,000, netting more than $3.3 million. Sineneng-Smith was indicted for multiple violations of 8 U. S. C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i). Those provisions make it a federal felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] 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,” § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and impose an enhanced penalty if the crime is “done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private fnancial gain,” § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i). In the District Court, she urged that the provisions did not cover her conduct, and if they did, they violated the Petition and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment as applied. The…
Excerpt of a 43,000-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.