UPDATE 3-U.S. top court to weigh prohibition on encouraging illegal immigration

(Recasts headline)
By Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON , Oct 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on
Friday agreed to hear a bid by President Donald Trump's
administration to resurrect a federal law that makes it a felony
to encourage illegal immigrants to come or stay in the United
States after it was struck down by a lower court as a violation
free speech rights.
In a case involving a California woman named Evelyn
Sineneng-Smith convicted of violating the law, the justices will
review a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals invalidating it for infringing on rights
guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Federal prosecutors in 2010 brought charges against
Sineneng-Smith, a U.S. citizen who ran an immigration
consultancy in San Jose, accusing her of making money 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.
Sineneng-Smith was convicted in 2013 of violating provisions
of the decades-old federal law that bar inducing or encouraging
an illegal immigrant to "come to, enter or reside" in the United
States, including for financial gain. She also was convicted of
mail fraud and was sentenced to 18 months in prison and three
years of supervised release.
The 9th Circuit in 2018 ruled that the law must be struck
down because it is overly broad and criminalizes even simple
speech that is protected by the First Amendment. For instance, a
grandmother could theoretically be charged under the law for
telling her grandson whose visa has expired, "I encourage you to
stay," the 9th Circuit noted.
The court begins its next nine-month term on Monday.
In Trump administration's appeal to the Supreme Court,
Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the law is important to
stopping those who enrich themselves by encouraging illegal
immigration. The law targets only communication that fosters
unlawful activity, which is not protected by the First
Amendment, Francisco said in a filing.
Sineneng-Smith's lawyers, urging the court to deny the case,
argued that the law goes well beyond forbidding speech essential
to a crime and covers both criminal and non-criminal immigration
infractions. There are better ways to catch wrongdoers, her
lawyers said, including provisions barring transporting or
harboring illegal migrants.
Trump's hardline stance toward immigration - legal and
illegal - has been a fundamental part of his presidency and his
2020 re-election bid.

<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
U.S. Supreme Court takes up major Louisiana abortion case
Chamber of Commerce, other business groups oppose Trump on
'Dreamers' Supreme Court to hear Appalachian Trail pipeline fight
Supreme Court to tackle gay rights, guns, abortion and
Trump ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>