The case of Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General in 2009 revolved around the issue of immigration law and its intersection with criminal law. Carachuri-Rosendo, a lawful permanent resident from Mexico who had been living in the U.S for many years, was convicted for two minor drug offenses in Texas state courts - possessing less than two ounces of marijuana and one tablet of Xanax without a prescription. The federal government sought to deport him under an immigration statute that allows removals based on "aggravated felony" convictions which include repeat drug offenses. However, he argued that his second offense could not be considered as such because it was not prosecuted as a recidivist crime at the state level due to its trivial nature. In June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled (7-2) in favor of Carachuri-Rosendo stating that his conviction did not constitute an aggravated felony under federal law since prosecutors did not establish during trial proceedings that he had committed a repeat offense; thus making him ineligible for automatic deportation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General was penned by Justice Clarence Thomas. He argued that the majority misinterpreted federal immigration law and failed to respect Congress's clear intent to treat recidivist drug offenders as aggravated felons subject to deportation, regardless of whether they were prosecuted or convicted as such under state law. According to him, a noncitizen who commits a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act has committed an 'aggravated felony' for purposes of immigration law even if he is not charged or convicted as a recidivist at the state level because his crime could have been punished as a felony under federal law.