Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't. The government didn't make the case that he was 'knowingly' in the US unlawfully and the judge told the jury that they didn't have to. The statue reads "whoever knowingly...". So the question is does 'knowingly' apply to both elements of the crime or just one? For my two cents, I think the government really hard to put people in jail and I don't see from the statute how knowling can apply to one required element of the crime and not to the other. Hey, if he wins, the verdict is overturned and the government can always retry him and present evidence that he was knowingly in the US unlawfully. It's also pretty clear from the question presented where Gorsuch comes down on this.