Jose Antonio Lopez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (549 U.S. 47)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 5, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 549 U.S. 47 · 127 S. Ct. 625
- Decided
- December 5, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The question raised is whether conduct made a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the Controlled Substances Act is a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(2). We hold it is not. I A The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines the term “aggravated felony” by a list that mentions “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance . . . including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18).” § 101(a)(43)(B), as added by §7342, 102 Stat. 4469, and as amended by § 222(a), 108 Stat. 4320, 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). The general phrase “illicit trafficking” is left undefined, but § 924(c)(2) of Title 18 identifies the subcategory by defining “drug trafficking crime” as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” or under either of two other federal statutes having no bearing on this case. Following the listing, § 101(a)(43) of the INA provides in its penultimate sentence that “[t]he term [aggravated felony] applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law” or, in certain circumstances, “the law of a foreign country.” 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43). An aggravated felony on a criminal record has worse collateral effects than a felony conviction simple. Under the immigration statutes, for example, the…
Excerpt of a 22,678-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.