The case of Luna Torres v. Lynch in 2015 revolved around the issue of whether a state conviction for arson constituted an "aggravated felony" under federal immigration law, which would make it grounds for deportation. Jorge Luna Torres, a legal permanent resident from the Dominican Republic who had been living in the U.S since he was nine years old, was convicted of attempted arson and sentenced to one day in prison and five years' probation. The government sought his removal based on this conviction arguing that it fell within the definition of an aggravated felony as per Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, Luna argued that his crime did not meet all elements required by federal law to be considered an aggravated felony because New York's arson statute does not require interstate commerce element like its federal counterpart does. In a 5-3 decision led by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court ruled against Luna stating that minor discrepancies between state laws do not prevent them from being categorized as equivalent offenses under INA if they involve similar conduct punishable as felonies under federal law. Therefore, even though New York’s arson statute lacks jurisdictional element present in its Federal version i.e., affecting interstate or foreign commerce; it still qualifies as “aggravated felony” making him deportable.

In the dissenting opinion for Luna Torres v. Lynch, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation of a federal law was incorrect and could lead to unfair consequences. She believed that the term "aggravated felony" in immigration law should not include state offenses with no corresponding federal crime because it would unfairly subject immigrants to deportation for crimes that are considered minor under federal law but serious under certain state laws. This discrepancy, she argued, goes against Congress' intent when they passed this legislation - which was to target only serious criminals for deportation. Furthermore, she pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases were treated by different courts due to varying interpretations of what constitutes an aggravated felony.