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
According to Srinivasan (Petitioner), petitioner Jose Angel Carachuri‑Rosendo is a lawful permanent resident who has two convictions for minor drug possession offenses and is seeking discretionary relief from removal.
Background and question before the Court
According to Srinivasan (Petitioner), petitioner argues that, despite his convictions, he is not categorically ineligible for discretionary relief from removal.
According to Justice Ginsburg, is there a mootness problem because the petitioner re‑entered the country illegally and committed another minor crime?
According to Ms. Saharsky, does the State offense correspond to an offense under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and thus to a Federal offense?
According to Justice Ginsburg, in Lopez, did the petitioner prevail because the conduct would not have been a felony under Federal law?
According to Justice Breyer, suppose we are dealing with the Armed Career Criminal Act—how does that affect the analysis?
According to Justice Kennedy, is the repeated conduct (recidivism) essential to the argument under the Federal statute?
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts: We will hear argument first this morning in Case 09‑60, Carachuri‑Rosendo v. Holder. Mr. Srinivasan.
Justice Breyer: I don't know. It seems to me you go further than you need to and, moreover, imagine a State offense that just says possession of marijuana, zero to 5 years.
- [1] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 3
- [2] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 4
- [3] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 32
- [4] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 35
- [5] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 42
- [6] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 57
- [7] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 3
- [8] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 20
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Srinivasan (Petitioner), petitioner maintains that his two minor drug possession convictions do not make him categorically ineligible for discretionary relief.
According to Srinivasan (Petitioner), the government has not raised a mootness argument.
According to Petitioner (Mr. Srinivasan), a person can only be punished as a felon under Federal law if a prior drug conviction actually exists.
Respondent Position
According to Ms. Saharsky, the analysis requires a two‑step inquiry: first, whether the State offense corresponds to an offense under the Controlled Substances Act, and second, whether it corresponds to a Federal offense based on its elements.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts: We will hear argument first this morning in Case 09‑60, Carachuri‑Rosendo v. Holder. Mr. Srinivasan.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg: Is there a mootness problem because the petitioner re‑entered illegally and committed another minor crime?
Justice Breyer: I don't know. It seems to me you go further than you need to and, moreover, imagine a State offense that just says possession of marijuana, zero to 5 years.
According to Ms. Saharsky, ms. Saharsky: Does the State offense correspond to an offense under the CSA and thus to a Federal offense?
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg: In Lopez, did the petitioner prevail because the conduct would not have been a felony under Federal law?
Justice Breyer: Can I ask you a related question, which will show what I'm trying – another thing that’s worrying me. Suppose we’re in the Armed Career Criminal Act.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy: Is the repeated conduct (recidivism) essential to the argument under the Federal statute?
- [1] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 3
- [2] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 4
- [3] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 20
- [4] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 32
- [5] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 35
- [6] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 42
- [7] f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdf, p. 57
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.
- f3a754907446bc9a70aa-r1-cdffce94a2fd3d83.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.