October Term 2000 · Docket 00-767
Can the Attorney General deny relief for pre-1997 crimes?
The government claims the Attorney General can deny relief for pre-1997 crimes. the side that brought the case argues this law applies only to future crimes.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The government advocate stated the Attorney General reasonably construed the act.
the side that brought the case advocate argued the pardon power analogy does not apply here.
the side that brought the case advocate noted this is not an ongoing prohibition against deportation.
the side that brought the case advocate described the waiver as negating consequences of a prior conviction.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a 1996 law applies to crimes committed before its passage. The government argues the Attorney General controls eligibility. the side that brought the case argues the law only covers future crimes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 24, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to uphold the Attorney General's denial of relief.
the side that brought the case wants the Court to grant relief for his pre-1997 crime.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
What each side says
The government argues the Attorney General reasonably construed the law to deny relief.
the side that brought the case argues the law does not apply to crimes committed before 1997.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
What the justices asked
Does the 1996 law apply to crimes committed before its effective date?
Did the Attorney General reasonably interpret the law to deny this relief?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
Why it matters
This case defines who can receive immigration relief for past crimes. It clarifies the scope of the Attorney General's authority. It affects thousands of non-citizens with pre-1997 convictions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 49-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.