Lopez v. Gonzales
Encyclopedia
Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47
(2006), held that an "aggravated felony
" includes only conduct punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act
, regardless of whether state law classifies such conduct as a felony or a misdemeanor
. Under federal law, there are two main consequences of having a prior conviction for an "aggravated felony." One is that, if the convicted person is an alien, he will be deported
. The other is that, with respect to certain federal crimes, a prior conviction for an aggravated felony provides a sentencing enhancement. In this case, Lopez had been convicted of conduct that was a felony under South Dakota
law but was a misdemeanor under federal law. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that this conviction could not serve as a basis for deporting him.
ultimately affirmed that decision. Lopez petitioned for review in the Eighth Circuit
, which the court denied. Because there was a conflict in the federal courts of appeals on how to classify crimes such as Lopez's, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
wrote for the majority. As is frequently the case with regard to immigration cases, the Court had to examine the interplay of federal and state laws that are complex in their phrasing. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an aggravated felony
includes "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance... including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18)." (a)(43)(B). A "drug trafficking crime," in turn, refers to "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act [the CSA] ( et seq.)." The term "aggravated felony" "applies to an offense whether in violation of Federal of State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years."
Under South Dakota law, aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine is equivalent to possessing cocaine, and that crime is a felony. Mere possession is not a felony under the CSA unless the amount of the drug possessed is greater than that normally kept for personal use. Where federal law treats certain conduct as a misdemeanor, and state law treats that same conduct as a felony, does that conduct constitute an "aggravated felony" or not? To answer this question, the Court had to parse the phrase "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act."
The Government argued that Lopez's South Dakota conviction qualified as an aggravated felony because it was (1) a felony, because South Dakota law made it a felony; that (2) was punishable under the CSA, because it is a crime under the CSA to possess a controlled substance, albeit a misdemeanor. This interpretation ignored the fact that to qualify as an "aggravated felony," the crime in question had to relate to trafficking in a controlled substance. Possession is not trafficking, the Court reasoned, because possession lacks a connection to commerce. "Reading § 924(c) the Government's way, then, would turn simple possession into trafficking, just what the English language
tells us not to expect, and that result makes us very wary of the Government's position."
As the INA provides, all "felonies punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" are drug trafficking crimes; thus, the place to go to determine what crimes are "felonies punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" is the Act itself. The term "aggravated felony" is one of federal law, and the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of federal law, including the meaning of words Congress uses when it crafts statutes. Congress could have expressly relied on state law to classify crimes as aggravated felonies. Since it did not, the Court reasoned, the class of crimes that constitute aggravated felonies must be defined in federal law. Hence, "unless a state offense is punishable as a federal felony it does not count" as an "aggravated felony."
In the Court's opinion, Government's gloss on the statutory phrase was not consistent with ordinary English usage. Because the words "punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" followed directly after the word "punishable," the Court reasoned that the most sensible meaning of the phrase was "a felony punishable as such by the Controlled Substances Act."
The Government pointed out that the term "aggravated felony" applies to any offense "whether in violation of Federal or State law." This qualification, it argued, showed that Congress intended for state law to determine whether conduct qualified as an aggravated felony. The Court read this language in the opposite way the Government did. But this gloss would "wrench[] the expectations raised by normal English usage." This qualifying language "confirms that a state offense whose elements include the elements of a felony punishable under the CSA is an aggravated felony." Furthermore, the fact that the Government had never prosecuted anyone under § 924(c) where the underlying "drug trafficking crime" was a state felony but a federal misdemeanor belied the Government's interpretation. Moreover, the Government's interpretation would make federal immigration law dependent on the vagaries of state criminal law, at least with respect to alien removal and eligibility for asylum. If Congress had meant the term "aggravated felony" to bear some generic meaning, and thus to depend to some extent on state law, it would not have expressly referenced another federal statute, such as § 924(c), in defining this category of aggravated felony. Put another way, it was not clear that Congress intended that a state conviction for felony possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana—a crime treated as a misdemeanor under federal law—should count as an aggravated felony while a state conviction for misdemeanor possession of 5 grams of cocaine—a crime treated as a felony under federal law—should not.
accepted the Government's interpretation of the phrase "felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act." Because Lopez's crime was a felony under South Dakota law, and the CSA provided for punishment for his crime, he had committed an aggravated felony. "The classification [of a crime as a felony or a misdemeanor] depends only on the authorized term of imprisonment."
NOTE: Wikipedia makes no warranty for the accuracy of legal information provided by third parties. Consult an attorney before relying on third-party information in your own case.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2006), held that an "aggravated felony
Felony
A felony is a serious crime in the common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors...
" includes only conduct punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act
Controlled Substances Act
The Controlled Substances Act was enacted into law by the Congress of the United States as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The CSA is the federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain...
, regardless of whether state law classifies such conduct as a felony or a misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
A misdemeanor is a "lesser" criminal act in many common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished much less severely than felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions and regulatory offences...
. Under federal law, there are two main consequences of having a prior conviction for an "aggravated felony." One is that, if the convicted person is an alien, he will be deported
Deportation
Deportation means the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country. Today it often refers to the expulsion of foreign nationals whereas the expulsion of nationals is called banishment, exile, or penal transportation...
. The other is that, with respect to certain federal crimes, a prior conviction for an aggravated felony provides a sentencing enhancement. In this case, Lopez had been convicted of conduct that was a felony under South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota is a state located in the Midwestern region of the United States. It is named after the Lakota and Dakota Sioux American Indian tribes. Once a part of Dakota Territory, South Dakota became a state on November 2, 1889. The state has an area of and an estimated population of just over...
law but was a misdemeanor under federal law. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
ruled that this conviction could not serve as a basis for deporting him.
Facts
Lopez entered the United States illegally in 1986, but became a lawful permanent resident in 1990. In 1997, he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine in a South Dakota court, and served 15 months in prison. When he was released, the INS sought to deport him because, it claimed, he had been convicted of a controlled substances violation and an "aggravated felony." An Immigration Judge ordered him deported, and the Board of Immigration AppealsBoard of Immigration Appeals
The Board of Immigration Appeals is the part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review that reviews the decisions of the Immigration Courts and some decisions of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It is an administrative appellate body that is part of the United States Department...
ultimately affirmed that decision. Lopez petitioned for review in the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Arkansas* Western District of Arkansas...
, which the court denied. Because there was a conflict in the federal courts of appeals on how to classify crimes such as Lopez's, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Majority opinion
Justice SouterDavid Souter
David Hackett Souter is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from 1990 until his retirement on June 29, 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by William J...
wrote for the majority. As is frequently the case with regard to immigration cases, the Court had to examine the interplay of federal and state laws that are complex in their phrasing. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an aggravated felony
Aggravated felony
In United States immigration law, the term aggravated felony refers to a broad category of crimes that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings...
includes "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance... including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18)." (a)(43)(B). A "drug trafficking crime," in turn, refers to "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act [the CSA] ( et seq.)." The term "aggravated felony" "applies to an offense whether in violation of Federal of State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years."
Under South Dakota law, aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine is equivalent to possessing cocaine, and that crime is a felony. Mere possession is not a felony under the CSA unless the amount of the drug possessed is greater than that normally kept for personal use. Where federal law treats certain conduct as a misdemeanor, and state law treats that same conduct as a felony, does that conduct constitute an "aggravated felony" or not? To answer this question, the Court had to parse the phrase "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act."
The Government argued that Lopez's South Dakota conviction qualified as an aggravated felony because it was (1) a felony, because South Dakota law made it a felony; that (2) was punishable under the CSA, because it is a crime under the CSA to possess a controlled substance, albeit a misdemeanor. This interpretation ignored the fact that to qualify as an "aggravated felony," the crime in question had to relate to trafficking in a controlled substance. Possession is not trafficking, the Court reasoned, because possession lacks a connection to commerce. "Reading § 924(c) the Government's way, then, would turn simple possession into trafficking, just what the English language
English language
English is a West Germanic language that arose in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England and spread into what was to become south-east Scotland under the influence of the Anglian medieval kingdom of Northumbria...
tells us not to expect, and that result makes us very wary of the Government's position."
As the INA provides, all "felonies punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" are drug trafficking crimes; thus, the place to go to determine what crimes are "felonies punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" is the Act itself. The term "aggravated felony" is one of federal law, and the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of federal law, including the meaning of words Congress uses when it crafts statutes. Congress could have expressly relied on state law to classify crimes as aggravated felonies. Since it did not, the Court reasoned, the class of crimes that constitute aggravated felonies must be defined in federal law. Hence, "unless a state offense is punishable as a federal felony it does not count" as an "aggravated felony."
In the Court's opinion, Government's gloss on the statutory phrase was not consistent with ordinary English usage. Because the words "punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" followed directly after the word "punishable," the Court reasoned that the most sensible meaning of the phrase was "a felony punishable as such by the Controlled Substances Act."
The Government pointed out that the term "aggravated felony" applies to any offense "whether in violation of Federal or State law." This qualification, it argued, showed that Congress intended for state law to determine whether conduct qualified as an aggravated felony. The Court read this language in the opposite way the Government did. But this gloss would "wrench[] the expectations raised by normal English usage." This qualifying language "confirms that a state offense whose elements include the elements of a felony punishable under the CSA is an aggravated felony." Furthermore, the fact that the Government had never prosecuted anyone under § 924(c) where the underlying "drug trafficking crime" was a state felony but a federal misdemeanor belied the Government's interpretation. Moreover, the Government's interpretation would make federal immigration law dependent on the vagaries of state criminal law, at least with respect to alien removal and eligibility for asylum. If Congress had meant the term "aggravated felony" to bear some generic meaning, and thus to depend to some extent on state law, it would not have expressly referenced another federal statute, such as § 924(c), in defining this category of aggravated felony. Put another way, it was not clear that Congress intended that a state conviction for felony possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana—a crime treated as a misdemeanor under federal law—should count as an aggravated felony while a state conviction for misdemeanor possession of 5 grams of cocaine—a crime treated as a felony under federal law—should not.
Dissenting opinion
Justice ThomasClarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
accepted the Government's interpretation of the phrase "felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act." Because Lopez's crime was a felony under South Dakota law, and the CSA provided for punishment for his crime, he had committed an aggravated felony. "The classification [of a crime as a felony or a misdemeanor] depends only on the authorized term of imprisonment."
See also
External links
- [ Slip opinion published by the Supreme Court]
- Text of the opinion, LII, Cornell University
- Text of the opinion, findlaw.com
- Multimedia files, OYEZ project
- Brief of Petitioner Lopez
- Brief of the Solicitor General on behalf of the Government
- Amicus brief of the ACLU
- Amicus brief of the American Bar Association
- Information about applying Lopez from the American Immigration Law Foundation
- Information about applying Lopez from the New York State Defenders Association Immigrant Defense Project
NOTE: Wikipedia makes no warranty for the accuracy of legal information provided by third parties. Consult an attorney before relying on third-party information in your own case.