Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Pugin v. Garland

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Pugin v. Garland
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: April 17, 2023
Decided: June 22, 2023
Outcome
affirmed (in part) and reversed and remanded (in part)
Vote
6-3
Majority
Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Neil Gorsuch • Elena Kagan (in part)

Pugin v. Garland is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 22, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The case was argued before the court on April 17, 2023. Pugin v. Garland was consolidated with Garland v. Cordero-Garcia.

The court affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 6-3 ruling, holding that "[a]n offense may “relat[e] to obstruction of justice” under §1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending."[1] Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined in part by Justice Elena Kagan.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 and 1227. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "1. Whether a state offense-like petitioner's accessory-after-the-fact offense here-that does not involve interference with an existing official proceeding or investigation may constitute an 'offense relating to obstruction of justice.'

    2. Whether, assuming that the phrase 'offense relating to obstruction of justice' is deemed ambiguous, courts should afford Chevron deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation of that phrase."[2]

    "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?"[3]

  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


    • Pugin v. Garland came on a writ of 'certiorari' to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Click here to review the lower court's opinion.
    Garland v. Cordero-Garcia came on a writ of 'certiorari' to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Click here to review the lower court's opinion.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in Pugin v. Garland:

    The following timeline details key events in Garland v. Cordero-Garcia:

    Background

    Pugin v. Garland and Garland v. Cordero-Garcia are immigration cases that were consolidated for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices were asked to decide whether a criminal offense that does not interfere with an existing proceeding or if discouraging a witness from reporting a crime could be considered an offense relating to obstruction of justice. The court will use the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) interpretation of the phrase offense relating to obstruction of justice, which does not require interference with an ongoing investigation, and rejected Pugin’s request to determine if the phrase is ambiguous.[4][5][6]

    Jean Francois Pugin, who has lived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident and is a citizen of Mauritius, is the petitioner in the first case. Pugin pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a felony. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison, nine of which were suspended. Because he was convicted of an aggravated felony, the U.S. government initiated deportation proceedings against him to deport him. When the BIA heard the case, they agreed that Pugin’s conviction qualified as an offense relating to obstruction of justice. The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the BIA’s opinion.[4][7]

    The Biden administration is the petitioner in the second case and Fernando Cordero-Garcia is the respondent. Cordero-Garcia has been a lawful permanent resident since 1965 and is a citizen of Mexico. He was arrested and charged in connection with the sexual assaults of his psychology patients in 2007. Cordero-Garcia was convicted in California for two counts of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, among other charges. Immigration authorities attempted to deport Cordero-Garcia in 2011, arguing his conviction for discouraging a witness qualified as an offense relating to obstruction of justice. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that Cordero-Garcia's convictions did not qualify as an offense relating to obstruction of justice.[4][8]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    • 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?

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[9]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[10]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, the judgment of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that "[a]n offense may “relat[e] to obstruction of justice” under §1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending."[1] Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “

    Federal law provides that noncitizens convicted of an “aggravated felony” are removable from the United States. The definition of “aggravated felony” includes federal or state offenses “relating to obstruction of justice.” 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(S). The question here is whether an offense “relat[es] to obstruction of justice” under §1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. That question arises because some obstruction offenses can occur when an investigation or proceeding is not pending, such as threatening a witness to prevent the witness from reporting a crime to the police. We conclude that an offense may “relat[e] to obstruction of justice” under §1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. [11]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]

    “

    I write separately to highlight one (possibly sufficient) reason why a predicate offense need not have a nexus to a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding in order to qualify as “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” within the meaning of this immigration statute. The reason is that, when Congress inserted the phrase “offense relating to obstruction of justice” into §1101(a)(43)(S), it might well have been referencing a specific and previously designated category of offenses—the offenses that are grouped together in Chapter 73 of Title 18 of the U. S. Code, under the heading “Obstruction of Justice.” 62 Stat. 769, codified at 18 U. S. C. §1501 et seq. And not all of the offenses that are addressed in Chapter 73 contain a pending-proceeding requirement. [11]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor] filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined in part by Justice Elena Kagan.

    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    From early American laws, to dictionaries, to modern federal and state obstruction statutes, interference with an ongoing investigation or proceeding is at the core of what it means to be “an offense relating to obstruction of justice,” 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(S). The Court circumvents this ample evidence only by casting a wide net and then throwing back all but the bycatch. That approach “turns the categorical approach on its head,” Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U. S. 385, 393 (2017), and subverts the commonly understood meaning of “obstruction of justice” when Congress enacted §1101(a)(43)(S) in 1996. I respectfully dissent [11]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[12]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, "PUGIN v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL," June 22, 2023
    2. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "J22-23 PUGIN V. GARLAND," accessed April 14, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "22-331 GARLAND V. CORDERO-GARCIA," accessed January 19, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 SCOTUSblog, "Court grants review in new batch of cases, including dispute on religious rights of employees," January 13, 2023
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Jean Francois Pugin v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, On petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reply brief for the petitioner," October 21, 2022
    6. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Relist-palooza: Religious exercise, the False Claims Act, takings clause, RICO, bank secrecy, and more," January 11, 2023
    7. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, "Pugin v. Garland," November 30, 2021
    8. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "Cordero-Garcia v. Garland," August 15, 2022
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 17, 2023
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 17, 2023
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    12. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Pugin_v._Garland&oldid=9163965"