Moncrieffe v. Holder
569 U.S. (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state drug conviction only qualifies as an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes if the state statute's elements necessarily correspond to conduct that is punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act. If the state statute is broad enough to criminalize conduct that federal law treats as only a misdemeanor, the conviction does not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony.
Facts:
- Adrian Moncrieffe, a Jamaican citizen, legally entered the United States in 1984 at age three.
- In 2007, police found 1.3 grams of marijuana, the equivalent of two or three marijuana cigarettes, in Moncrieffe's car during a traffic stop.
- Moncrieffe pleaded guilty in a Georgia court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
- The Georgia statute under which Moncrieffe was convicted criminalizes a broad range of conduct, from large-scale commercial trafficking to the social sharing of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration.
Procedural Posture:
- The Federal Government initiated removal proceedings against Adrian Moncrieffe, alleging his Georgia conviction constituted an 'aggravated felony.'
- An Immigration Judge, serving as the court of first instance, found the conviction to be an aggravated felony and ordered Moncrieffe removed.
- Moncrieffe, the appellant, appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision.
- Moncrieffe, the petitioner, filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The Fifth Circuit denied Moncrieffe's petition, holding that his Georgia offense was equivalent to a federal felony.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest federal court, granted Moncrieffe's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a noncitizen's state conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, under a statute that is broad enough to criminalize the social sharing of a small amount of marijuana without payment, categorically qualify as an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No. A state conviction under a statute that criminalizes conduct that may be either a felony or a misdemeanor under federal law does not categorically qualify as an "aggravated felony." Using the categorical approach, the Court must look to the least culpable conduct criminalized by the state statute, not the specific facts of the defendant's case. The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) treats the distribution of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration as a misdemeanor, while treating other distribution as a felony. Because the Georgia statute under which Moncrieffe was convicted does not distinguish between these two types of conduct, a conviction under it does not necessarily establish that he committed an act that is a felony under the CSA. The Court rejected the government's proposal to hold fact-finding hearings in immigration court, as this would undermine the efficiency and fairness of the long-standing categorical approach. Any ambiguity in criminal statutes referenced by immigration law must be construed in the noncitizen's favor.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes. The conviction should qualify as an aggravated felony. A plain reading of the statute requires only that the state offense is a felony and that the conduct is punishable under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Moncrieffe's offense was a felony under Georgia law, and possession with intent to distribute is punishable under the CSA. The Court's precedents, starting with Lopez v. Gonzales, have created an inconsistent and illogical framework, and this decision continues that trend by effectively treating a state felony conviction as a federal misdemeanor for immigration purposes.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
Yes. The conviction should qualify as an aggravated felony. The majority's rigid application of the categorical approach creates an absurd result where serious drug traffickers in about half the states will now be eligible for relief from deportation. A better approach for overly broad state statutes would be to allow immigration courts to look beyond the bare elements of the crime and inquire into the facts of the conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) allows a noncitizen to prove their conduct fell into the misdemeanor exception (no remuneration and a small amount). Moncrieffe failed to present evidence that his offense did not involve remuneration and therefore did not meet his burden to show his conviction was not for an aggravated felony.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of the 'categorical approach' in immigration law when determining the consequences of a state criminal conviction. It clarifies that federal sentencing factors that distinguish between felony and misdemeanor punishment, not just the base elements of a crime, are critical to the categorical analysis. The ruling prevents immigration courts from conducting 'mini-trials' into the facts of past state convictions, thereby promoting administrative efficiency and predictability. This creates a safe harbor for noncitizens convicted under broad state drug laws, placing the burden on legislatures to draft more specific statutes if they intend for convictions to trigger mandatory deportation consequences.
Unlock the full brief for Moncrieffe v. Holder