October Term 2008 · Docket 07-499
Does forced participation in persecution bar asylum?
The dispute centers on whether the law requires proof of intent to persecute when an applicant acted under threat of death.
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. Pincus argued that the government's position ignores mental factors.
Justice Scalia noted that criminal statutes often require knowledge of the act.
Justice Alito questioned the sufficiency of any threat of serious injury.
Mr. Katsas stated that the Act bars persons who assist in persecution.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- 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 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the immigration bar for persecutors. It asks if the statute demands a mental state or only objective conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 5, 2008.
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 side that brought the case seeks asylum benefits despite past participation in persecution.
The government seeks to deny benefits to anyone who participated in persecution.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that coercion negates the intent required for the bar.
The government argues that the statute requires only objective participation in persecution.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if the government position ignores mental factors entirely.
Justice Alito asked if any threat of serious injury suffices for the side that brought the case's claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-7
Why it matters
The outcome defines the legal standard for asylum applicants who acted under duress. It clarifies whether intent matters in immigration bars. This affects how courts evaluate past conduct under threat.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
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 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-7
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 11-21 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
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.