Term: 2012
Docket: 11-702
Adrian Moncrieffe, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
- Pro
11-702 MONCRIEFFE V. HOLDER DECISION BELOW: 662 F.3d 387 CERT. GRANTED 4/2/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that an alien "who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable." 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). A state law offense may constitute an "aggravated felony" if it is the equivalent of a "felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act." 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(43)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2). Under the Controlled Substances Act, a person commits a felony if he possesses with intent to distribute "less than 50 kilograms of marihuana," 21 U.S.C. § 841, except that a person whose offense involves "distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration" commits only a misdemeanor, id. §§ 841(b)(4), 844. The Question Presented, which is also pending before the Court in No. 11-79, Garcia v. Holder, is: Whether a conviction under a provision of state law that encompasses but is not limited to the distribution of a small amount of marijuana without remuneration constitutes an aggravated felony, notwithstanding that the record of conviction does not establish that the alien was convicted of conduct that would constitute a federal law felony. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-60826
The U.S. Supreme Court case Adrian Moncrieffe v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General (2012) revolved around the issue of whether a conviction under Georgia law for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute constitutes an aggravated felony that would result in automatic deportation under federal immigration law. The petitioner, Adrian Moncrieffe, was a legal permanent resident who had been convicted on this charge and subsequently faced deportation proceedings initiated by the government based on its interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In a 7-2 decision led by Justice Sotomayor, the court ruled in favor of Moncrieffe stating that unless his conviction involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana it did not qualify as an aggravated felony under INA thus he should not be subject to mandatory removal from United States.
In the dissenting opinion for Adrian Moncrieffe v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's interpretation of immigration law was incorrect and overly lenient towards noncitizens convicted of drug offenses. He contended that any state conviction involving marijuana distribution should be considered an aggravated felony under federal law, regardless of whether remuneration or a significant amount of drugs were involved in the crime. This would automatically make such individuals deportable without further review by an immigration judge. According to him, this approach is more consistent with Congress' intent to treat drug trafficking as a serious crime warranting deportation and does not require courts to delve into complex inquiries about individual state laws or specific circumstances surrounding each case.
