Helaman Hansen operated an adult adoption program which he falsely claimed would lead to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Writing for the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett interpreted the key words "encourages or induces" narrowly.

The government had argued that those words were terms of art, meaning criminal law concepts of solicitation and facilitation (or aiding and abetting).

Hansen and the court of appeals below, on the other hand, had interpreted the words in their ordinary meaning, which would potentially include a broad range of protected speech.

The court applied the overbreadth doctrine as expressed in United States v. Williams (2008): a law is unconstitutional if it "prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech" relative to its "plainly legitimate sweep".

[7] Here, the law's "plainly legitimate sweep" covers nonexpressive conduct, for example smuggling, not implicating the freedom of speech at all.

He reiterated his general opposition to the doctrine of overbreadth, similar to his previous solo opinions in United States v. Sineneng-Smith (2020) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021).