October Term 2009 · Docket 09-60
Does a second minor drug conviction trigger mandatory removal for lawful permanent residents?
The dispute centers on whether a second minor drug offense makes a long-term resident ineligible for discretionary relief from removal.
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 side that brought the case argued that long-term residents with two minor drug convictions should not be categorically ineligible for relief.
The government argued that Congress intended all aliens engaging in the same serious conduct to be treated the same.
Justice Sotomayor questioned the elements of the recidivism finding and the underlying State statutes.
Justice Kennedy asked if the second unlawful entry makes the entry lawful.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 51-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 51-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- 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 9-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of federal immigration law. It asks if a second minor drug conviction automatically bars a lawful permanent resident from seeking discretionary relief. the side that brought the case argues deep family ties should allow for relief. The government argues uniform treatment requires mandatory removal for all such offenders.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 51-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 51-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-35
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 31, 2010.
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 62, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 43-45
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to allow discretionary relief for long-term residents with two minor drug convictions.
The government wants the Court to mandate removal for all aliens with two minor drug convictions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 51-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 51-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-35
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that deep family ties and connections justify discretionary relief despite two minor convictions.
The government argues that Congress intended uniform treatment for all aliens engaging in the same serious conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 51-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 51-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-35
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked which court now handles the State court matter.
Justice Sotomayor asked if any State law is precisely analogous to the Federal law in question.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-21
Why it matters
This case determines the removal status of long-term residents with minor drug convictions. It defines the scope of discretionary relief available to these individuals. The outcome shapes immigration enforcement standards for repeat minor offenses.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 51-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 51-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-35
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 9-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-21
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 29, lines 51-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 51-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 51-29 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 51-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 35-35
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.