Skeptical of adult adoption ploy

Supreme Court weighs U.S. citizenship path for immigrants

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed inclined Monday to rule against a man convicted of violating immigration law for offering adult adoptions he falsely claimed would lead to citizenship.

Attorneys for Helaman Hansen told the justices during approximately 90 minutes of arguments that the law he was convicted of violating was too broad. But the court’s conservative majority in particular seemed willing to side with the government and conclude that it is not.

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that the law “has been on the books for 70 years” without some of the issues Hansen’s lawyers worried about. He also expressed no sympathy for Hansen himself, who he said was “taking advantage of very vulnerable people.”

The case involves a section of federal immigration law that says a person such as Hansen who “encourages or induces” a noncitizen to come to or remain in the United States illegally can be punished by up to five years in prison. That’s increased to up to 10 years if the person doing the encouraging is doing so for their own financial gain.

The federal government says that from 2012 to 2016 Hansen — who lived in Elk Grove, California, near Sacramento — deceived hundreds of noncitizens into believing that he could guarantee them a path to citizenship through adult adoption.

Hansen was ultimately convicted of encouragement charges as well as fraud charges. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the encouragement charges and another 20 years on the fraud charges.

But a federal appeals court ruled that the law on encouragement is overbroad and violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment and overturned just those convictions.

The court’s three liberal justices seemed more concerned about the reach of the law.

Justice Elena Kagan asked “what happens to all the cases” where a lawyer, doctor, neighbor, friend or teacher “says to a noncitizen: ‘I really think you should stay.’”

Kagan wanted to know whether those people could or would be prosecuted under the law.

In other cases Monday:

■ The Supreme Court will decide whether a disabled activist can file disability rights lawsuits against hotels she doesn’t intend to visit.

The high court said Monday it would decide a case involving Deborah Laufer. Laufer, who lives in Florida, has filed over 600 federal lawsuits against hotel owners and operators, according to a Supreme Court filing.

■ The Supreme Court won’t hear a civil rights case brought by the parents of a teenager who was naked and unarmed when he was fatally shot by an Oklahoma police officer in 2019.

The high court on Monday rejected without comment the lawsuit bought by the parents of Isaiah Lewis.

Police have said that the 17-yearold was shot after he broke into a home in Edmond and attacked two officers. They have said that a stun gun had no effect on him.