Supreme Court Breaking News: Another Crimmigration Decision, Not Good News for Immigrants

 

The Supreme Court decided another crimmigration case this morning.

 

The issue in Pugin v. Garland (consolidated with Garland v. Cordero-Garcia) was whether, to qualify as “an offense relating to obstruction of justice,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S) subjecting a noncitizen to mandatory removal, a criminal offense must require a nexus with a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding?  Karen Pita Loor and Cassidy Heverling for SCOTUSBlog previewed the oral argument in the consolidated cases (here and here) involving whether a federal law that allows the U.S. government to remove noncitizens convicted of “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” applies to cases that are not connected to open investigations or judicial proceedings. 

The issue is of great practical immigration significance because an “offense relating to the obstruction of justice” is among the criminal convictions that are classified as an “aggravated felony” subjecting noncitizens to mandatory removal from the United States. 

The Court held that a criminal offense may “relat[e] to obstruction of justice” under the statute even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.   The Court recognized that obstruction of justice is often “most effective” when it prevents “an investigation or proceeding from commencing in the first place.”  The Court declined to interpret the statute in a way that would exclude many common obstruction offenses from the definition of aggravated felony under the immigration statute. Finally, the Court reasoned that the phrase “relating to” resolves any doubt about the scope of the statute, because it ensures that the statute covers offenses having a connection with obstruction of justice—which surely covers common obstruction offenses that can occur when an investigation or proceeding is not pending.

Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson joined.  Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Gorsuch joined, along with Justice Kagan (except for Part III).

Be on the lookout for updates on this post on analyses of the decision.  And stay tuned for a recap at the end of the month of the immigration decisions of the 2022 Supreme Court Term. 

KJ

UPDATE (June 26):  Here is the SCOTUSBlog analysis by Karen Pita Loor and Cassidy Heverling of the opinion.  Their bottom line:  ” the majority’s decision in Pugin opens the door for the government to argue that an ever-expanding array of crimes warrant deportation.”

KJ