This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether the term “theft offense,” an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, includes aiding and abetting.
According to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), according to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), the Ninth Circuit previously held that the theft‑offense definition does not include aiding and abetting, a holding the petitioner says is incorrect.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), according to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), the Ninth Circuit held that the term “theft offense,” an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, does not include aiding and abetting.
According to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), according to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), the petitioner argues that the Ninth Circuit’s holding is incorrect.
The government contends that Congress intended the aggravated‑felony provision to capture aiders and abettors, so minor variations in formulation should not affect its application.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General)
According to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), according to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), the Ninth Circuit held that the theft‑offense definition does not include aiding and abetting.
According to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), according to Petitioner (Dan Himmelfarb), that holding is incorrect.
Respondent (Luis Alexander Duenas‑Alvarez)
According to Government, congress intended that minor variations in formulation would not matter, so the aggravated‑felony provision captures aiders and abettors.
According to Mr. Meade, the government’s first approach is categorical: it must show that all elements of the crime fall within the generic definition of the offense.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Souter asked whether, under the natural and probable consequences theory, a separate assault charge would be required on the record when the underlying theft case is prosecuted.
Justice Scalia asked whether a person can be convicted of the consequential crime if he is never charged with that crime, specifically regarding theft and assault.
Justice Scalia later asked whether the issue was the sentence given or the sentence prescribed for the crime.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the government was urging the Court to consider the petitioner’s new argument rather than reviewing the Ninth Circuit’s holding.
Justice Breyer asked, “But what do we do about that?” in reference to the issues being discussed.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 19ef1a7bc653adb686f4-r1-779ef5be0b12641c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.