October Term 2017 · Docket 15-1498
Does the immigration statute's violence definition lack clarity?
The government argues the law is clear. The defendant claims it is vague.
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
The government advocate argued the Ninth Circuit erred. He cited the Johnson decision. He claimed the definition is not vague.
The defendant advocate argued the statute is unclear. He cited Justice Gorsuch's point. He claimed Congress cannot delegate this task.
Justice Sotomayor asked about arbitrary removal. She questioned if officials could act on bias. She sought a clear standard.
Justice Ginsburg asked about moral turpitude. She noted burglary fits that category. She questioned the government's alternative argument.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 49-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-45
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests a federal immigration statute. It defines aggravated felonies. The term crime of violence is central. Courts must interpret this term. The Ninth Circuit found it vague. The government disagrees with that view.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 2, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
What each side wants
The government wants the statute upheld. It seeks to remove the defendant. It argues the law is clear.
The defendant wants the statute struck down. He seeks to avoid removal. He argues the law is vague.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-1
What each side says
The government argues the statute is clear. It cites ordinary case analysis. It claims courts can apply it consistently.
The defendant argues the statute is vague. He claims it invites arbitrary enforcement. He cites the Johnson decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-1
What the justices asked
Justice Gorsuch asked about civil laws. He noted they are often hidden. He questioned their accessibility.
Justice Kagan asked about ordinary case analysis. She noted both statutes use it. She sought clarification on this point.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 49-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-45
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of removal. It affects how courts interpret statutes. It impacts the clarity of federal laws. It shapes future immigration enforcement actions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-1
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 23-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 49-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 49-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-25 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-45
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 32, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-1
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.