Mellouli v. Holder (13-1034)

argument 13-1034

Mellouli v. Holder

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the statutory text at issue in Mollouli v. Holder?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear an argument first this morning in case thirteen ten thirty four, Malooley versus Holder.

0:06

Mr.

John G. Roberts 0:06

Larimore?

Larimore 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The initial goal of this appeal was to reverse A single Board of Immigration Appeals decision that changed the removability analysis for drug paraphernalia convictions. It abandoned the long-standing practice that Congress had ratified. We wanted to reinstate the rule that still applies in all other drug deportation decisions, which looks at the facts that must be established by a conviction and at the record of convictions. conviction when that's appropriate under this court's precedence in Moncrief and Descamp. That methodology has led to tens of thousands of drug deportations each year. But not for someone convicted of possessing a sock. Now the government has argued that this wrong headed BIA paraphernalia decision should be expanded to all drug convictions.

Larimore 1:03

The government wants any drug conviction to be a deportable offense, even if it's clearly for a non federal drug. This Court should reject the government's position and the BIA's position and adhere to the time-tested approach that the statute to the to the statute that Congress has ratified.

Samuel A. Alito 1:22

Can we begin by looking at the text of the statute? What does the phrase relating to controlled substance, etcetera, modify?

Larimore 1:34

relating to sort of the function of connecting the very broad range of offenses that Congress wants to make deportable. to the list of substances that that the that Congress has spelled. Yes.

Samuel A. Alito 1:54

We could start out that way. Maybe we'll get beyond it. But let's start out that way. We have a phrase here relating to a controlled substance. What does it modify? has to modify a noun. What noun does it modify? relating

Larimore 2:07

to would modify uh would modify law or regulation. But if you bu if you diagram the sentence, if it modifies the law, then I think you've lost the case. But if if you diagram the sentence though, everything in that whole phrase convicted of a violation of a law or regulation relating to a controlled substance under Section eight oh two all modifies alien. The whole phrase uh has to be taken together and read together to modify what alien is deportable. Um And and the pure grammar does uh i is not sufficient to determine what Congress meant when it enacted that text.

Elena Kagan 2:49

If you if you I think Justice Alito is right. Um, if you're claiming that then you're accepting that there's ambiguity and you have an uphill battle To fight.

Larimore 3:02

Well again, given the text and the context of this statute and the history of its application over decades and decades. That's an argument that they're arbitrary and

Elena Kagan 3:12

capricious.

Larimore 3:13

Well, it it's also part of the analysis that goes into determining the Chevron the uh an question that you uh allude to, Justice Sotomayor, because um uh Chevron should be a approached after applying the usual principles of statutory interpretation. And that's w that's what Chevron says. Wait

Stephen G. Breyer 3:33

how does it how does it uh I've missed this I I'm missing something. W wh why do you lose the case? Well

Unknown 3:41

Mm-hmm.

Stephen G. Breyer 3:43

I mean I I I I assume that I assumed as you said what what are you fighting here? Well I I I assumed as you said that that the words uh uh relating to a controlled substance as defined in Section one hundred two concern any law or regulation.

Larimore 4:03

Well th and but that's only part of the analysis.

Stephen G. Breyer 4:15

uh or a foreign law or something. And it does relate to the regulation of a controlled substance, but a lot of other things as well, that that falls outside.

Larimore 4:25

Yes. And particularly in a sentence that that has s such a focus on the word convict.

Stephen G. Breyer 4:36

And here it has uh it relates to thirty seven. That's case one. Case two it relates to four thousand thirty seven. Yeah, and both these statutes uh uh uh contain the thirty six that are in section eight oh two. One contains four thousand more. And one contains one more. How am I supposed to analyze those two statutes?

Larimore 5:01

Um This goes to the application of the categorical approach and the modified categorical approach. If the identity of the substance is a is an element of the offense, then you use the modified categorical approach, you look at the record of conviction and you determine what substance is involved.