Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Federal Defenders as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent.
Argument: 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)’s criminalization of a person who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact” that it would be in violation of the law is unduly broad under the First Amendment. The prohibition also violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. “Encouragement” and “Inducement” are indefinite terms and depend on subjective determinations. This provides insufficient notice to the public and invites arbitrary and selective enforcement. The statute’s failure to specify a mens rea for “encourages or induces” exacerbates this problem. The statute would also chill First Amendment-protected speech.
Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of movant.
Argument: As applied to the substances at issue in this case – UR-144 and XLR-11 – 21 U.S.C. §813 and its accompanying definitional statute 21 U.S.C. §802(32)(A)(i) are unconstitutionally vague, and void for that reason.