Supreme Court weighs ‘obstruction of justice’ interpretation of deportation statute
Kaelan Deese
Video Embed
The Supreme Court heard arguments in two consolidated cases Monday over which types of crimes tied to obstruction of justice can result in deportation of a legal immigrant, prompting the justices to search for a neutral solution.
The justices on Monday considered the scope of a deportation statute that was used against two lawful permanent residents after they were convicted of witness tampering and being an accessory after the fact. What’s disputed is whether the timing of the crimes, if they overlapped with a pending or ongoing investigation, changes the outcome of their convictions.
SUPREME COURT WIDENS PATH TO CHALLENGE MOST POWERFUL REGULATORS IN FEDERAL COURTS
Jean Francois Pugin, who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1985, was ordered for removal after pleading guilty to being an accessory after the fact. In a separate case, psychologist Fernando Cordero-Garcia had been a lawful resident since 1965 but was ordered for removal after attempting to dissuade his former clients from reporting his sexual misconduct.
Appeals courts disagreed on whether their actions amounted to “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” when there hadn’t been an official investigation into their crimes for them to obstruct.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the attorneys arguing the case if the matter came down to two choices over the “common law” definitions of obstruction or within a “contemporary dictionary” definition.
“We think that you can impede an investigation by keeping it from getting off the ground,” said Curtis Gannon, an attorney for the Justice Department.
“It’s sort of obstruction of justice taking over the world,” Justice Elena Kagan said of the government’s position.
The justices ultimately appeared to want to take a more neutral path between the government and the plaintiffs.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“I think the problem we’re having is that the government wants to broaden the definition,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “It’s like we’re navigating between Scylla and Charybdis, and no one is giving us a way to get between the two extremes.”
The case, Pugin v. Garland, will be decided before the high court term ends in late June.