Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument Relating to Aggravated Felony Definition

As Kevin Johnson blogged last week, the Supreme Court granted Cert on a pair of cases raising the following question:

To qualify as “an offense relating to obstruction of justice,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), must a predicate offense require a nexus with a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding?

In one case, Pugin v. Garland, Pugin was ordered removed based on a conviction to accessory after the fact to a felony. In the second case, Garland v. Cordero-Garcia, involved a conviction for dissuading, or attempting to dissuade, a witness from reporting a crime.

The oral argument took place today, and a recording is available here. At oral argument, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Curtis E. Gannon, argued in support of a broader definition of an offense relating to obstruction of justice: “the wheels of justice can be obstructed, even before they begin to move.”

A summary of the oral argument by Britain Eakin is also available on Law 360.

IE