Whether a jury instruction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the Government to prove that a defendant intended to help that alien evade detection

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The jury convicted Petitioners Yun Zheng (aka Wendy Zheng) and Yan Qiu Wu (aka Jason Wu) under 8 US.C. § four counts of harboring aliens for commercial gain—based on a flawed instruction that would turn much of America into criminals. That jury instruction removed the mens rea that the statute commands. Over Petitioners’ objection, the District Court instructed the jury that those who “tended to substantially facilitate an alien|’s] remaining in the United States illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting his or her unlawful presence” are culpable under § 1324(a)(1)(A)Gii). But § 1324(a)(1)(A)Gii) requires a defendant’s intent to harbor the alien—helping that alien evade detection—to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Acknowledging that it was creating a 4-3-1 circuit split, the Sixth Circuit held that “harbor[ing]” does not require a defendant to act intentionally or purposefully in helping an alien evade detection. The Court of Appeals also held any error to have been harmless under Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), even though Petitioners had contested the error and the Government’s evidence was not overwhelming. This decision therefore violated Neder and the Court’s interpretation of Neder in Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92, 102 (2016). The Sixth Circuit deepened a split in the lower federal and state courts on the harmlessness issue. The following questions are presented: (i) Whether a jury instruction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)Gii), which prohibits the “harbor[ing]” of anyone who is in the United States illegally, requires the Government to ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued prove that a defendant intended to help that alien evade detection. Gi) Whether an erroneous jury instruction misstating or omitting the correct mens rea can be harmless error when a defendant contests it at trial, the prosecutorial evidence adduced at trial is not overwhelming, or both.