• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 69-74 of 74 results

Brief amici curiae of Arizona et al - Other

Document United States, Petitioner v. Helaman Hansen, 22-179, Brief amici curiae of Arizona et al, Other (U.S. Sep. 28, 2022)
September30, 2022 The Honorable Scott Harris Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States OneFirst Street NE Washington D.C. 20543 Re: United States v. Hansen, No. 22-179 DearMr.
Harris, I write to you concerning the AmicusBrief that the State of Arizonafiled in United States v. Hansen, No, 22-179, on September 28, 2022.
The brief incorrectly lists Attorney General William Tong on behalf of the State of Connecticut on the inside cover page and on page 20 of the AmicusBrief.
Instead, Connecticut’s Chief State’s Attorney, Patrick J. Griffin, should have been identified as the counsel representing the State of Connecticut.
Weapologize for the error and would appreciate if you would changethe signature block on the two pages referenced aboveto display the following for the State of Connecticut:
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of Arizona et al - Proof of Service

Document United States, Petitioner v. Helaman Hansen, 22-179, Brief amici curiae of Arizona et al, Proof of Service (U.S. Sep. 28, 2022)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of Arizona et al - Main Document

Document United States, Petitioner v. Helaman Hansen, 22-179, Brief amici curiae of Arizona et al, Main Document (U.S. Sep. 28, 2022)
The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Jeopardizes The Constitutionality Of Similarly-Worded Criminal Laws In All 50 States The First Amendment overbreadth doctrine exists to prevent the government from prohibiting “a substantial amount of protected speech” by passing facially overbroad statutes.
When courts use hypotheticals instead of real-world conduct to invalidate statutes on their face, it “threaten[s] to short circuit the democratic process by preventing laws embodying the will of the people from being implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution.” Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 451.
States have a vital interest in enforcing these criminal statutes to protect victims of this conduct and the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the terms “encourage” or “induce” are unconstitutionally overbroad based on hypothetical situations risks grave harm.
Had the Ninth Circuit asked that “easy” question, it should have concluded that the “additional element” of encouraging or inducing a noncitizen to illegally enter the United States for a commercial advantage or private financial gain “substantially narrows the reach of the relevant language,” leaving “little doubt” that the statute’s legitimate sweep “greatly exceeds any plausible overbreadth.” Id. at 80a.
Here, for example, Respondent’s conduct of encouraging or inducing noncitizens to illegally enter the United States for his personal financial gain (each victim paying between $550 and $10,000, see Pet. App. at 2a–3a) falls squarely within the legitimate aim of the aggravated circumstances set forth in the applicable statute.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of Arizona et al - Certificate of Word Count

Document United States, Petitioner v. Helaman Hansen, 22-179, Brief amici curiae of Arizona et al, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Sep. 28, 2022)
Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33. l(h), I certify that the Brief of Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner contains 4,553 words, excluding the parts of the Brief that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33. l(d).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
(800) 890.5001 www.beckergallagher.com 8790 Governor's Hill Drive Suite l 02 I Cincinnati, Ohio 45249 Franklin Square 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20005
Sworn to and subscribed before me by said Affiant on the date designated below.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion to extend the time to file a - Proof of Service

Document United States, Petitioner v. Helaman Hansen, 22-179, Motion to extend the time to file a, Proof of Service (U.S. Sep. 14, 2022)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion to extend the time to file a - Main Document

Document United States, Petitioner v. Helaman Hansen, 22-179, Motion to extend the time to file a, Main Document (U.S. Sep. 14, 2022)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search