October Term 2016 · Docket 16-54

Does the phrase sexual abuse of a minor require a generic federal definition?

The dispute centers on whether courts must define this term using state laws or federal standards.

Official caption
Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Fisher argued the key term is the word abuse.

    Mr. Kedem argued the Attorney General controls statutory interpretation.

    justice_question_1

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case asks how courts should interpret a specific immigration statute term.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 27, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the court to define the term using state laws.

The government wants the court to defer to the agency interpretation.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the term requires a generic definition based on state laws.

The government argues the agency has authority to interpret the statute.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked why the rule of lenity applies before other tools.

Justice Kagan asked why this term is not a cross-reference like others.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This interpretation determines how courts treat similar immigration cases.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON