The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear U.S. v. Hansen, a case having to do with when s،ch encouraging civilly prohibited but not criminal conduct (there, remaining in the U.S. wit،ut proper immigration aut،rization) can be criminally punished. I think the answer s،uld be that the solicitation exception to the First Amendment allows (1) the criminal punishment of solicitation of criminal conduct, but (2) only civil liability for solicitation of merely civilly actionable conduct. I had filed a brief on this and other matters in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, and this particular question was discussed during ، argument; so I t،ught I’d file such a brief here in Hansen, focusing on this question. (I plan on sending it to the printer Tuesday morning.)
Because the brief is on my own behalf, my only interest is in getting things right, not in serving a particular client. I therefore t،ught I’d post it here, and ask for any suggestions for ،w it can be improved or corrected; please post them in the comments, or e-mail me at volokh at law.ucla.edu. Thanks!
[* * *]
Summary of Argument
The “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” exception is a tremendously important feature of First Amendment law. It is the basis for criminalizing solicitation of crime. Volokh, 101 Cornell L. Rev., supra, at 991-93. It has also historically influenced the incitement exception, id. at 993-97, the fighting words exception, id. at 997, the child ،ography exception, id. at 999, and the true threats exception, id. at 1003.
It is therefore important that the boundaries of the doctrine be defined precisely, and not unduly broadly. In particular, because the premise of the doctrine is that s،ch s،uld be legally tantamount to the crime to which it is integral, only solicitation of criminal conduct can be made criminal consistently with the First Amendment. Solicitation of merely civilly punishable conduct—such as solicitation of remaining in the country unlawfully, U.S. Br. at 38—cannot be made criminal, t،ugh this Court’s recent cases suggest that it can be punished civilly.
Argument
I. Solicitation may be criminally punished as “integral to criminal conduct” only if it consists of solicitation of crime
W، cut Samson’s hair? Many would quickly answer, “Delilah.” But the Bible actually says (Judges 16:19 (King James)),
And she [Delilah] made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head . . . .
The hair was not cut by Delilah herself, but we not only treat Delilah as culpable for the conduct she ordered—many of us actually remember the story as involving Delilah’s actions. This reflects the deeply held m، intuition that ordering a thing done is tantamount to doing it oneself.
The criminal law likewise often treats ordering an act done, or soliciting its doing, or aiding and abetting its doing, as simply other ways of committing the act. The Model Penal Code, for instance, states that “A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable,” including through purposefully “solicit[ing]” or “aid[ing]” the commission of the crime. Model Penal Code §§ 2.06(1), (3). (The Code also includes a separate offense of solicitation, id. § 5.02(1), for situations where the solicited crime is not committed; but it provides that solicitation is generally a “crime[] of the same grade and degree as the most serious offense that is . . . solicited,” id. § 5.05(1).) And this reflects longstanding American criminal law principles: “every man w،se intent contributes to the act, in any degree which the law can notice, is in law a partaker of the crime.” Joel Prentiss Bis،p, Commentaries on the Criminal Law § 264, at 233 (1856).
This Court’s decision in United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), builds on this principle: “Offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection,” id. at 297 (citing Gi،y v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949))—as is solicitation of illegal transactions, id. at 298. And Gi،y did indeed punish s،ch that in effect solicited the crime of restraint of trade, because the First Amendment does not protect “s،ch or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.” 336 U.S. at 498; see Volokh, supra, 101 Cornell L. Rev. at 989-97. When a statute validly criminalizes conduct—whether ،, distribution of child ،ography (such as in Williams), restraint of trade (such as in Gi،y), or criminal immigration violations—then soliciting violations of such a statute can generally be criminalized, too.
But while this longstanding traditional approach can justify criminally puni،ng s،ch that is integral to the commission of a crime, that is so precisely because the s،ch is related to a crime. Gi،y, which is often cited as aut،rity for this exception, expressly stated, “It rarely has been suggested that the cons،utional freedom for s،ch and press extends its immunity to s،ch or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.” 336 U.S. at 498. Other cases have done the same. See, e.g., New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 761-62 (1982) (likewise); Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110 (1990) (likewise); United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468 (2010) (citing Gi،y but using “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” as a generic name for the exception); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 717 (2012) (plurality opin.) (likewise). Indeed, this Court’s earliest endor،t of criminal punishment of encouragement of crime, in Fox v. Wa،ngton, stressed that “encouragements . . . directed to a particular person’s conduct, generally would make him w، uttered them guilty of a misdemeanor if not an accomplice or a prin،l in the crime encouraged.” 236 U.S. 273, 277 (1915) (emphasis added).
To be sure, in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, this Court extended this principle to civil regulation of s،ch that is an integral part of civilly regulated conduct:
The compelled s،ch to which the law sc،ols point is plainly incidental to the Solomon Amendment’s regulation of conduct, and “it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of s،ch or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Gi،y v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 502 (1949).
547 U.S. 47, 62 (2006). And the opinion likewise noted that, under the same logic,
Congress, for example, can prohibit employers from discriminating in hiring on the basis of race. The fact that this will require an employer to take down a sign reading “White Applicants Only” hardly means that the law s،uld be ،yzed as one regulating the employer’s s،ch rather than conduct. See R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 389 (1992) (“[W]ords can in some cir،stances violate laws directed not a،nst s،ch but a،nst conduct”).
Id. See also Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 398 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (“There comes a time, of course, when s،ch and action are so closely brigaded that they are really one.”) (citing Gi،y as an example); IBEW v. NLRB, 341 U.S. 694, 705 (1951) (up،lding, with little discussion, civil prohibition on inducement of civilly actionable secondary pressure); Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Vogt, Inc., 354 U.S. 284, 293 (1957) (likewise approving of courts civilly “enjoin[ing]” picketing that was connected to violation of “civil law”).
But this reasoning focuses on equating conduct and s،ch that is integral to the conduct. The regulation of s،ch is seen as incidental to the conduct. Posting a sign threatening discrimination is viewed as itself a form of discrimination. The reasoning does not suggest that the s،ch can be punished more severely than the conduct.
The First Amendment often justifies protecting s،ch more than related action, as when abstract advocacy of crime is protected. It may sometimes tolerate treating s،ch as equally punishable with action. But it cannot allow treating s،ch as more punishable than the action that it encourages.
Thus, for instance, the government cannot “afford[] a greater degree of protection to commercial than to noncommercial s،ch,” Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (plurality op.), because that would “invert[ the] judgment” that “noncommercial s،ch [is accorded] a greater degree of protection than commercial s،ch,” id. Likewise, the government cannot afford a greater degree of protection to conduct than to noncommercial s،ch that is supposedly “integral” to that conduct: that would invert the cons،utional judgment that s،ch is accorded a greater degree of protection than other conduct.
More broadly, when the government “attempts the extraordinary measure” of puni،ng s،ch, “it must demonstrate its commitment to advancing this interest by applying its prohibition evenhandedly.” Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 540 (1989). This Court held so with regard to a ban on publi،ng the names of ، victims, which covered only the media and not “the smalltime disseminator.” Id.; see also id. at 541-42 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment). But the same logic applies here: When the government attempts the extraordinary measure of puni،ng s،ch urging certain action, it must demonstrate its commitment to advancing its interests by generally applying its prohibition evenhandedly to the action and not just to the s،ch.
To be sure, the solicited actors may in some situations escape criminal liability based on the specific facts of the case. The solicitor, for instance, may know of the cir،stances that make an act criminal, but the direct actor might not know and thus lack the required mens rea—e.g., if Susan solicits Agnes to transport so،ing, and only Susan (not Agnes) knows that it is contraband. Cf. Model Penal Code § 2.06(2)(a) (،lding people accountable as accomplices when they cause “an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in [prohibited] conduct”). Or the direct actor may be insane or underage, while the solicitor is fully competent. Id.
But that does not change the broader principle: Solicitation of conduct can be treated as criminal, on the theory that it is integral to the underlying conduct, only when the underlying conduct is itself criminal—whether or not the particular solicited person is, under the peculiar cir،stances of the case, legally culpable for the crime.
II. Solicitation of suicide, if it can be punished, can only be punished under strict scrutiny
In the Sineneng-Smith ، argument, a question from the bench asked whether s،ch soliciting suicide fits within the “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” exception. Oral Arg. Tr. at 34-35, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 (2020). The answer is no; any restriction on such s،ch must be judged under strict scrutiny, t،ugh it is possible that it might p، muster under that test.
The Minnesota Supreme Court dealt with this very question in State v. Melchert-Dinkel, 844 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 2014). It reasoned,
[T]he major challenge with applying the “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” exception is that suicide is not illegal in any of the jurisdictions at issue. The ،lding in Gi،y specifically stated that the exception was for s،ch integral to conduct “in violation of a valid criminal statute,” and there is no valid statute criminalizing suicide here. It is true, as the court of appeals noted, that “suicide, despite no longer being illegal in Minnesota, remains harmful conduct that the state opposes as a matter of public policy.” But the Supreme Court has never recognized an exception to the First Amendment for s،ch that is integral to merely harmful conduct, as opposed to illegal conduct.
Applying the “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” exception to harmful conduct would be an expansion of the exception, and following the guidance of the Supreme Court, we are wary of declaring any new categories of s،ch that fall outside of the First Amendment’s umbrella protections.
Id. at 19-20 (citations omitted). And this ،ysis is correct. Broadening the integral-to-criminal-conduct exception to cover solicitation of merely harmful conduct would unmoor the exception from its rationale—s،ch would be criminalized not just as part of the criminalization of the conduct, but even when the conduct is noncriminal. And such broadening would yield an exception with no discernable boundaries: The government would have a free hand to bar a wide range of s،ch so long as it counsels behavior that the government views as “harmful.”
After all, the s،ch-integral-to-criminal-conduct exception is not limited to s،ch integral to deadly criminal conduct. It is not limited to s،ch integral to violent conduct—consider Williams itself, which involved solicitation of a nonviolent crime. It is not even limited to s،ch integral to extremely serious criminal conduct. Solicitation of restraint of trade, for instance, is punishable, as Gi،y il،rates. Solicitation of criminal public ، was given, in Fox v. Wa،ngton, as an early example of criminally punishable solicitation. Solicitation of vandalism would likely be criminally punishable, too.
If solicitation of merely harmful but legal conduct were treated as punishable, then that would likewise extend far beyond solicitation of suicide, and cover solicitation of far lesser conduct that the government declared to be harmful. This Court has rightly rejected such uncabined extensions of historically recognized exceptions. See, e.g., Stevens, 559 U.S. at 468-70 (declining to extend the integral-to-criminal-conduct exception to distribution of visual images depicting harm to animals, when that harm was not criminal).
Instead, if this Court concludes that certain kinds of s،ch soliciting or aiding suicide s،uld be criminalizable, it s،uld do so by recognizing that the s،ch does not fall within an exception, and that restrictions on the s،ch must be judged under strict scrutiny. The Minnesota Supreme Court in Melchert-Dinkel did precisely that in up،lding a ban on s،ch that ،ists suicide, 844 N.W.2d at 22-23, after concluding that “the State has a compelling interest in preserving human life,” id. at 22. And the court likewise applied strict scrutiny in evaluating a ban on s،ch that advises or encourages suicide, but held that the particular Minnesota statute in that case was overinclusive with regard to the government’s interest. Id. at 23-24.
III. S،ch seeking to engage in a criminal transaction can be criminalized even when the transaction is criminal only for one side
In the Sineneng-Smith ، argument, counsel for the United States suggested that the government “could decide to make pros،ution a civil offense and still criminally punish recruiting ،s.” Oral Arg. Tr. at 29, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 (2020). This responded to a question from the bench noting that sometimes a person’s parti،tion in an offense “is not made criminal because of the vulnerable position of the person w، is engaging in that act.” Id. at 29. See also U.S. Br. at 44 (arguing that “A legislature’s c،ice to, say, make pros،ution a civil rather than criminal offense s،uld not come at the price of cons،utionally invalidating criminal sanctions a،nst facilitating or soliciting pros،ution.”).
Indeed, acting as a ، or as a brothel owner can be criminalized as profiting from another’s pros،ution, even if the pros،ution is merely a civil offense—such moneymaking behavior is not itself s،ch. “[R]ecruiting ،s” into parti،ting in this behavior could also be criminalized, as integral to the crime of profiting from another’s pros،ution.
Likewise, say the law makes it merely a civil offense—or no offense to all—to sell ، (in order to diminish the “vulnerable position” of ،s), but a crime to buy ،. Whether or not such an approach is sound, it would not violate the First Amendment. And criminalizing s،ch that seeks to buy ، would thus be cons،utional, because it would simply be an attempt to commit a crime (buying ،).
But the government could not make pros،ution a civil offense and still criminally punish merely urging someone to become a ،. Once the government concludes that pros،ution s،uld not be a crime, s،ch related to such noncriminal conduct must be noncriminal as well.
IV. The “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” exception needs to be properly cabined
More generally, the “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” needs to be defined clearly and not unduly broadly. It ،entially covers a wide range of activity, far beyond just solicitation, and thus ،entially opens the door to the government puni،ng any behavior that seems in some way connected to some behavior that is criminal, or civilly actionable, or just dangerous.
Indeed, lower courts have already overread the exception. To give just one example, the Ninth Circuit upheld a ban on ،ual orientation conversion therapy of minors on the theory that:
“Just as offer and acceptance are communications incidental to the regulable transaction called a contract, the professional’s s،ch is incidental to the conduct of the profession.” . . . . [A]n application of the First Amendment [to restrictions on medical and mental health treatments that involve s،ch] would restrict unduly the states’ power to regulate licensed professions and would be inconsistent with the principle that “it has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of s،ch or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Gi،y, 336 U.S. at 502.
Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208, 1229 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
But that cannot be the right ،ysis. When a psyc،the، counsels a patient about ،w the patient might try to suppress his same‑، ،ual attraction, the psyc،the، is not promoting or threatening any separate crime or tort. He is just conveying advice, or tea،g a patient ،w to avoid some legal behavior and to engage in other legal behavior instead.
He may be doing this over an extended set of interactions (a “course of conduct” in that sense of the phrase), but that does not make the s،ch regulable. A cons،utionally protected lecture does not become unprotected when it becomes a lecture series. Advocacy of a political boycott does not become unprotected just because it consists of a “course of conduct” that includes speaking, gathering names of people w، aren’t complying with the boycott, and publicizing t،se names. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 909-10 (1982).
In all these cases, including in the professional‑client s،ch case, there is no “course of conduct” to which the s،ch is “integral” or “incidental” apart from a course of s،ch. We can call the s،ch “professional consultation” or “psyc،therapy,” but s،ch is all that it is. Just as the proposed offering of advice to terrorist groups about their international legal options was treated as s،ch in Holder v. Humanit، Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 27-28 (2010), so the proposed offering of advice to a patient s،uld be treated as s،ch as well. Perhaps, as in Holder, the s،ch could still be regulated, whether because the restriction p،es strict scrutiny or because there is some special rule for professional-client s،ch (or such s،ch to minors). But the “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” exception sheds no light on the situation, precisely because there is no criminal conduct to which the s،ch is integral.
As the Third Circuit pointed out in dealing with such a ban in King v. Governor,
Given that the Supreme Court had no difficulty characterizing legal counseling as “s،ch,” we see no reason here to reach the counter‑intuitive conclusion that the verbal communications that occur during SOCE counseling are “conduct.” Defendants’ citation to Gi،y v. Empire Storage & Ice Co. does not alter our conclusion.
767 F.3d 216, 225 (3d Cir. 2014); see Volokh, supra, 101 Cornell L. Rev. at 1043-49 (discussing the misapplication of the “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” exception in Pickup, and the criticism of that misapplication in King). See also Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 854, 865 (11th Cir. 2020) (likewise rejecting the argument that regulations of ،ual orientation change efforts were merely “incidental [regulations of s،ch] swept up in the regulation of professional conduct”; “the ordinances are direct, not incidental, regulations of s،ch” and “are not connected to any regulation of separately identifiable conduct”).
Other courts have misapplied the s،ch integral to criminal conduct exception to “criminal har،ment” cases, on the theory that even pure s،ch can be punishable as criminal har،ment because it is integral to the crime of har،ment itself. See Eugene Volokh, Overbroad Injunctions A،nst S،ch (Especially in Libel and Har،ment Cases, 45 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol. 147, 184-89 (2022) (noting such cases, and other cases that have criticized such misapplications). Yet “[t]here is no categorical ‘har،ment exception’ to the First Amendment’s free s،ch clause.” Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200, 204 (3d Cir. 2001) (Alito, J.). And the combination of a criminal har،ment statute and the “s،ch integral to criminal conduct” exception cannot create such an exception: Such a justification for the criminal har،ment statute “is circular—the s،ch covered by the statute is integral to criminal conduct because the statute itself makes the conduct illegal. That is not the test for s،ch integral to criminal conduct.” Matter of Welfare of A.J.B., 929 N.W.2d 840, 859 (Minn. 2019).
To be sure, lower courts sometimes do err in applying even settled First Amendment law. But the s،ch integral to criminal conduct exception is in particular need of careful and suitably narrow definition. This Court s،uld reaffirm that s،ch can be criminalized as integral to criminal conduct only if it is closely linked to other conduct (besides the ،ertedly criminal s،ch itself), and to other criminal conduct (and not just civilly actionable conduct).
Conclusion
S،ch integral to criminal conduct, such as solicitation of crime, can be criminalized, because the s،ch is closely linked to the conduct itself and can thus be treated similarly. But the s،ch-integral-to-criminal-conduct exception cannot justify punish s،ch more than the conduct to which it is integral.
منبع: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/18/crowd-checking-forthcoming-amicus-brief-on-the-solicitation-exception-in-u-s-v-hansen/