October Term 2006 · Docket 05-1629
Does aiding and abetting count as a theft offense for immigration removal?
The government argues that aiding and abetting theft qualifies as an aggravated felony. the opposing side argues that the statute requires a direct intent to steal.
Verified source milestones
- — 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
Mr. Himmelfarb argued that the Ninth Circuit's holding is clearly incorrect.
He stated that even the opposing side does not defend the exclusion of aiding and abetting.
Mr. Meade argued that the case does not involve a conviction under California's car theft statute.
He emphasized that the specific statute requires an intent to steal.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 51-37 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 51-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether federal immigration law treats aiding and abetting theft as a qualifying aggravated felony. The Ninth Circuit ruled that California's theft definition is broader than the generic federal definition. The government seeks to reverse that ruling. the opposing side seeks to affirm it.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 51-37 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 51-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 5, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to rule that aiding and abetting theft is an aggravated felony.
the opposing side wants the Court to rule that aiding and abetting theft is not an aggravated felony.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 51-37 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 51-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
What each side says
The government argues that the Ninth Circuit's exclusion of aiding and abetting is legally incorrect.
the opposing side argues that the statute requires a direct intent to steal, which aiding and abetting lacks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 51-37 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 51-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the Court should decide the issue as a matter of first impression.
Justice Scalia asked if the opposing side can seek to uphold the judgment on other grounds.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-15
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of aggravated felony theft for immigration removal. It determines whether indirect participation in theft triggers mandatory deportation. The outcome shapes how federal courts interpret state theft statutes in immigration proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 51-37 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 51-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
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 10, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-15
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 23, lines 51-37 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 51-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 51-37 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 51-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
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.