López v. Gonzales: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (→Background) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
In 1997, Jose López, a lawful [[permanent resident]] living in South Dakota, was arrested for and pleaded guilty to charges under state law of aiding and abetting another person's possession | In 1997, Jose López, a lawful [[permanent resident]] living in South Dakota, was arrested for and pleaded guilty to charges under state law of aiding and abetting another person's cocaine possession. South Dakota law treated the conviction as a felony. On the grounds that this amounted to an ''aggravated felony'' under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began legal proceedings to [[deportation|deport]] López. Under the INA, an aggravated felony includes illicit drug trafficking, which Title 18 of the United States Code defines to include "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act." INS argued that state felonies fall under felonies punishable by the Controlled Substances Act.<ref name=oyezlopezvgonz>[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-547 ''Oyez'', "López v. Gonzales," accessed June 9, 2025]</ref><ref name=liilopezvgonz>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/05-547P.ZS ''Legal Information Institute'', "LOPEZ v. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL - Syllabus," accessed February 9, 2017]</ref><ref>In 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was divided into three agencies: [[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services]], [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]], and [[U.S. Customs and Border Protection]].</ref> | ||
López filed for a cancellation of his deportation, arguing that the federal Controlled Substances Act treated his crime—aiding another person's possession of an illicit substance—as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. The immigration judge for the case denied the cancellation request, ruling that because the crime was a felony under South Dakota state law, it counted as an aggravated felony under the INA.<ref name=oyezlopezvgonz/><ref name=liilopezvgonz/> | López filed for a cancellation of his deportation, arguing that the federal Controlled Substances Act treated his crime—aiding another person's possession of an illicit substance—as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. The immigration judge for the case denied the cancellation request, ruling that because the crime was a felony under South Dakota state law, it counted as an aggravated felony under the INA.<ref name=oyezlopezvgonz/><ref name=liilopezvgonz/> | ||
Revision as of 17:40, 20 June 2025
 | |
| López v. Gonzales | |
| Docket number: 05-547 | |
| Court: United States Supreme Court | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John Paul Stevens • Antonin Scalia • Anthony M. Kennedy • David Souter • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer • Samuel Alito | |
López v. Gonzales is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided on December 5, 2006. The case concerned the application of criminal charges in deportation proceedings and whether a crime considered a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under federal law constitutes an aggravated felony and is grounds for removal under federal immigration law.
In an 8-1 ruling, the Court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that "conduct made a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is not a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” for Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) purposes."[1] Justice David Souter wrote the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion.[1]
Background
In 1997, Jose López, a lawful permanent resident living in South Dakota, was arrested for and pleaded guilty to charges under state law of aiding and abetting another person's cocaine possession. South Dakota law treated the conviction as a felony. On the grounds that this amounted to an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began legal proceedings to deport López. Under the INA, an aggravated felony includes illicit drug trafficking, which Title 18 of the United States Code defines to include "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act." INS argued that state felonies fall under felonies punishable by the Controlled Substances Act.[2][3][4]
López filed for a cancellation of his deportation, arguing that the federal Controlled Substances Act treated his crime—aiding another person's possession of an illicit substance—as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. The immigration judge for the case denied the cancellation request, ruling that because the crime was a felony under South Dakota state law, it counted as an aggravated felony under the INA.[2][3]
On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. López filed suit against the attorney general at the time, Alberto Gonzales, and brought the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the lower courts that a state felony crime amounts to an aggravated felony under the INA.[2][3]
López appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on April 3, 2006.[2]
Question presented
The court limited oral arguments to the following question:
|
Outcome
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an 8-1 decision issued on December 5, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jose López. The majority opinion was written by Justice David Souter, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that crimes that are considered misdemeanors under federal law are not aggravated felonies for the purposes of deportation, even if they are felonies under state law. Although illicit drug trafficking was a felony under federal law, the court ruled that López's crime did not fall under illicit trafficking because there was no commerce involved. Additionally, the court objected to the government's interpretation of aggravated felony to include state-level felonies:[3]
| “ | Finally, the Government's reading would render the law of alien removal ... and the law of sentencing for illegal entry into the country ... dependent on varying state criminal classifications even when Congress has apparently pegged the immigration statutes to the classifications Congress itself chose. Congress would not have incorporated its own statutory scheme of felonies and misdemeanors if it meant courts to ignore it whenever a State chose to punish a given act more heavily.[6] | ” |
| —Supreme Court of the United States[3] | ||
The court wrote that in regards to federal immigration law constructed by Congress, there was no room for state-by-state disparities in the classification of crimes that fall under the enforcement of that law.[3]
The judgment of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.[3]
Dissenting opinion
|
|
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. In considering the definition of aggravated felony, the majority opinion interpreted "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" to mean crimes that are considered felonies by the Controlled Substances Act. Justice Thomas, on the other hand, interpreted it to mean (1) any felony that is (2) also an offense punishable by the Controlled Substances Act. In his opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that López's crime satisfied these two elements: (1) it was punishable as a felony under South Dakota state law; and (2) it was an offense punishable under the Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, López had committed an aggravated felony.[7]
In addition, Justice Thomas argued that "any felony" referred only to felony as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, "which classifies crimes as felonies when punishable by death or greater than one year of imprisonment." Therefore, according to Thomas, the Immigration and Nationality Act's definition of aggravated felony encompassed both state and federal felonies, determined only by the punishment associated with the crime.[7]
See also
.jpg)
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- López v. Gonzales (2006)
- Oyez case file for López v. Gonzales (2006)
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Supreme Court, López v. Gonzales, decided December 5, 2006
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Oyez, "López v. Gonzales," accessed June 9, 2025
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Legal Information Institute, "LOPEZ v. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL - Syllabus," accessed February 9, 2017
- ↑ In 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was divided into three agencies: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "05-547 LOPEZ V. GONZALES - Questions Presented," accessed February 9, 2017
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Legal Information Institute, "LOPEZ v. GONZALES - Justice Thomas, dissenting," accessed February 9, 2017
