UPDATE 1-U.S. Supreme Court skeptical of law against encouraging illegal immigration

(Adds comments from Justices Breyer and Kagan, paragraphs
10-11)
By Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON, Feb 25 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices
on Tuesday signaled skepticism toward a federal law that made it
a felony to encourage illegal immigrants to come or stay in the
United States as they heard a bid by President Donald Trump's
administration to revive the measure after it was struck down by
a lower court.
The nine justices heard arguments in the administration's
appeal after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in 2018 invalidated the law as a violation of the U.S.
Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
Conservative and liberal justices alike expressed concern
that the decades-old law may be too broad, repeatedly pressing
the administration about what kind of speech could be
criminalized.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, asked whether it
would be illegal for a grandmother to tell a grandchild who was
in the United States unlawfully, "I encourage you to stay."
Other justices wondered about the work of lawyers or charities
and whether their speech could be impaired.
The law bars inducing or encouraging an illegal immigrant to
"come to, enter or reside" in the United States, including for
financial gain. The case involves Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, a U.S.
citizen who ran an immigration consultancy in San Jose,
California, and was convicted of violating the law.
It is one of a number of immigration-related appeals the
Supreme Court is handling during its term that ends in June. The
justices in November heard Trump's bid to rescind a program that
protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of young people
known as "Dreamers" who were brought to the United States
illegally as children.
Trump has made restricting both legal and illegal
immigration a centerpiece of his presidency and his re-election
bid this year.
Sineneng-Smith, convicted of violating this law as well as
mail fraud, was sentenced to 18 months in prison and three years
of supervised release. She was accused of profiting by duping
illegal migrants into paying her to file frivolous visa
applications while remaining in the country indefinitely. Her
business primarily served Filipinos who worked as home
healthcare providers.
The Trump administration said the law is not meant to
criminalize protected speech, but rather to stop people who
would facilitate or solicit illegal immigration and enrich
themselves by doing so.
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the law
could be limited rather than struck down entirely. Some of his
colleagues seemed to doubt its viability given the threat to
even simple speech, pushing back against the administration's
attorney who suggested that a person urging a relative to stay
in the United States would not be prosecuted under the law.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked what would happen if the
person gave 10 reasons to stay "and repeats that and repeats
that, and it's very definitely encouraging and inducing a person
to stay in this country - does that count?"

<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
U.S. Supreme Court bars lawsuit over cross-border shooting of
Mexican teen says liberal Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor
should recuse Supreme Court to hear religious fight over same-sex foster
care Supreme Court open to more damages against Sudan over
embassy bombings Supreme Court leans toward $7.5 billion pipeline in trail
dispute ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>