- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Immigration
- Date Filed: June 22, 2023
- Case #: No. 22-23
- Judge(s)/Court Below: KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined, and in which KAGAN, J., joined as to all but Part III.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioners were convicted of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime and of being an accessory after the fact to a felony. Their respective immigration judges determined these were offenses “relating to obstruction of justice” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S) that made them removable. They appealed and argued that finding was incorrect because the offenses did not require a pending investigation or proceeding. While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did not, and the Court was asked to reconcile the conflict. The Court held 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.” After reviewing the definitions of Petitioners’ offenses and the statute’s text, the Court determined it is possible to obstruct the process of justice without an investigation or proceeding pending. The phrase “relating to” indicated the statute was meant to include offenses that “have ‘a connection with’ obstruction of justice,” regardless of a pending action. Had Congress intended the result Petitioners suggested, they would have indicated as such by cross-referencing another statute or phrasing the statute differently. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals judgment affirmed; Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judgment reversed and remanded.