In the case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 2016, Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a lawful permanent resident from Mexico was deported after pleading no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in California. The federal law defines "sexual abuse of a minor" as grounds for deportation but does not define the age of a minor. While California law considers anyone under 18 as minors, many states and federal laws set the age at 16. After his deportation order by an immigration judge was upheld by Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and Sixth Circuit court stating that his conviction constituted an aggravated felony involving "sexual abuse of a minor", he appealed to Supreme Court arguing that his offense did not constitute “sexual abuse” because it involved consensual sex with someone over sixteen years old which is legal in majority jurisdictions across US including Federal Law itself. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Esquivel-Quintana holding that in the context of statutory rape offenses focused on age difference between participants; 'minor' must mean younger than 16 for purposes related to removal provisions under Immigration and Nationality Act.

In the case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's interpretation of "sexual abuse of a minor" was too narrow and not consistent with the ordinary meaning or statutory context. He contended that any sexual act involving someone under 18 could be considered abusive due to their inability to give legal consent. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's reliance on state laws as evidence for what constitutes 'abuse', arguing instead that federal law should provide its own definition independent from varying state statutes. Lastly, Thomas expressed concern over potential consequences resulting from this ruling; namely, it may prevent removal proceedings against immigrants who have committed certain sex offenses against minors.