October Term 2022 · Docket 22-23
Does an obstruction crime require a pending legal proceeding?
The dispute centers on whether federal law defines obstruction of justice as interference with any investigation or only with a currently active legal proceeding.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion 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. Gannon argued that Congress understood obstruction to include pre-proceeding crimes. He stated that the term covered acts before a formal case began. He emphasized the historical understanding of the phrase in 1996.
Ms. Hutton argued that the term implies interference with a pending proceeding. She stated that Congress chose a specific term of art. She emphasized the need for a nexus to an active legal process.
Justice Sotomayor asked about crimes that do not involve aiding a criminal. She questioned if failing to report a crime counts as obstruction. She sought to clarify the boundary of the legal definition.
Justice Kagan asked about the requirement of a nexus to a proceeding. She inquired if reasonable foreseeability is the standard. She referenced previous Board indications on this issue.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 117, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 117, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 11-53 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 11-53
- 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 39-41 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 55-11 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 55-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 33-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-49
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of a 1996 immigration statute. The law treats certain obstruction crimes as aggravated felonies. The core issue is the meaning of the phrase relating to obstruction of justice. One side argues the phrase covers crimes committed before a formal proceeding begins. The other side argues the phrase requires interference with an active legal process.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 117, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 117, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 11-31
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2023.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 33-45
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to define obstruction broadly. It seeks to include crimes committed before a formal proceeding starts. This interpretation would allow deportation for a wider range of conduct.
the side that brought the case wants the Court to define obstruction narrowly. It seeks to limit the term to interference with a pending proceeding. This interpretation would exclude crimes committed before an investigation formally begins.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 117, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 117, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 11-31
What each side says
The government argues that Congress used a broad term of art. It contends that obstruction includes acts that hinder any future investigation. This view relies on the phrase relating to as a broadening modifier.
the side that brought the case argues that obstruction requires a specific nexus to an active process. It contends that the term implies interference with a pending proceeding. This view relies on the need for a reasonable foreseeability of a specific legal action.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 117, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 117, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 11-31
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked how the phrase relating to affects the definition. He noted that a broad definition becomes even broader with this language. He questioned the scope of the term obstruction of justice.
Justice Thomas asked for a straightforward definition of obstruction of justice. He sought a clear boundary for the legal term. He wanted to understand the core meaning of the offense.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 11-53 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 11-53
- 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 39-41 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 55-11 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 55-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 33-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-49
Why it matters
The definition of obstruction determines who faces deportation. A broad definition includes more criminal acts. A narrow definition excludes acts without a pending proceeding. This distinction affects the rights of non-citizens. It shapes the scope of federal immigration power. The outcome defines the boundary of criminal liability in this context.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 117, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 117, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 11-31
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 47-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 11-53 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 11-53
- 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 39-41 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 55-11 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 55-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 33-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-49
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 117, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 117, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 117, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 117, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 15-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 15-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 47-27 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 47-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 11-31
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.