Words allow us to communicate intent and meaning to each other. We describe, persuade, encourage, reprimand, and praise. The ability to communicate through words is essential to any political order like our own, which is based on the rule of law .

Our laws are comprised of words. These words describe prohibited, permitted, and mandated actions as well as the punishments that will result from not abiding by those commands. By using words, our laws clearly communicate our common understanding of justice and form a standard by which to empower government action and protect individual rights from infringement. The meaning of a law’s words formed the crux of debate in United States v. Hansen, on which the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

Hansen swindled more than 450 immigrants of nearly $2 million with false claims that he could procure them American citizenship. In addition to charging him for fraud, the government also accused Hansen of violating an immigration law which prohibits persons from "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration. Hansen challenged this latter charge. He claimed the immigration law was overbroad, meaning its language punished not only legitimate government goals but also expression protected by the First Amendment.

By a 7-2 vote, the court rejected this argument. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion rightly interpreted the law as not touching the right to free speech. The issue here came down to whether the law used "encourage or induce" in its ordinary meaning or in a more technical sense. If it meant the way people use these terms in regular conversation, then the statute would violate the First Amendment. Because then one might be said to encourage or induce an action merely by expressing a political opinion criticizing the law or offering a genuinely-held but false interpretation of that law. But laws sometimes use terms in more specialized ways.

While we may use the word "trial" to mean any difficult circumstance, the word in legal texts normally intends a specific context and set of procedures related to determining guilt and innocence. Here, "encourage or induce" might only prohibit soliciting or facilitating illegal conduct. Barrett argued that the words "encourage or induce" in this law intended the more narrow, technical meaning. Barrett explained that solicitation involves urging an illegal action while facilitation somehow aids the perpetrator in his illegal deed. One can solicit or facilitate with actions.

But Barrett also noted that solicitation and facilitation may only involve words, not necessarily actions of encouragement and support. Justice Barrett then wrote that by using the words "encourage or induce," the immigration law intended the second, technical meanings of the terms. The law, therefore, only banned words that solicited or facilitated illegal conduct, not general expressions of opinion. This argument recognized long-standing and nearly ubiquitous laws, federal and state, that punish certain words only insofar as they are closely connected to planning and carrying out illegal deeds.

This might all seem like fodder only of interest to legal scholars. But the court’s reasoning has important implications for the rest of us as well. To have sided against the law’s constitutionality not only would have misread the statute. It would have undermined the government’s legitimate capacity to enforce immigration laws. Given the sorry state of our immigration policy and enforcement, that result would only exacerbate our current problems on this issue. But to have interpreted the law in the broader sense and still upheld it would have been a blow to free speech.

We need the freedom to debate, to advocate immigration policy without fear of government reprisal. We need it especially now, so that we can at some point break the current, unsustainable status quo on immigration. The court struck this balance in its proper interpretation of the statute. It thereby upheld the rule of law, respecting the needs of government power and individual liberty. Let us hope the rest of the government reacts properly: vigorously enforcing our laws and protecting our right to free speech. Perhaps that combination may help lead us from our current immigration stalemate.

Adam Carrington is assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College.