The United States v. Sineneng-Smith case in 2019 revolved around a federal law that made it illegal to encourage or advise immigrants to stay in the country illegally. Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, an immigration consultant from California, was convicted under this law for her role in filing labor applications for clients she knew were not eligible for green cards due to their expired visas. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned her conviction on grounds that the law violated freedom of speech rights protected by the First Amendment. However, when brought before the Supreme Court, they declined to rule on these constitutional issues and instead criticized the Ninth Circuit's decision as overreach because it had introduced arguments neither side had presented during trial proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Sineneng-Smith, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of 8 U.S.C §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) was too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent conduct. She contended that under this interpretation, any individual who encourages an undocumented immigrant to remain in the country could be prosecuted, regardless of their motives or relationship with said immigrant. This would include family members, teachers, lawyers or social workers who advise immigrants on their rights and options. Furthermore, she pointed out that such a broad reading contradicts Congress' intent when passing this law - which was to target individuals involved in smuggling operations rather than those providing humanitarian aid or legal advice.