State crimes and deportation
Jorge Luna Torres v. Lynch
In brief
The Supreme Court ruled that New York arson can count as an immigration-law aggravated felony even without the federal law’s commerce requirement.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-3 · May 19, 2016 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that Jorge Luna Torres’s New York arson conviction counted as an immigration-law “aggravated felony”—a category that made him ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation—even though New York’s law lacked the federal arson law’s interstate-commerce requirement.
- Who it affects
- A state offense can count as an immigration-law aggravated felony if it matches a listed federal crime in every element except the requirement that the property be used in interstate or foreign commerce.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It agreed with the Second Circuit (affirmed).
Luna was convicted of third-degree arson under New York law, which covered intentional damage to a building or motor vehicle by fire or explosion.
Federal immigration law treats some offenses that match crimes named in federal statutes as aggravated felonies.
Question presented
Does a state offense constitute an aggravated felony for the purpose of the removal of a permanent resident when the federal statute describes the state offense but also includes an interstate commerce element that the state offense lacks?
What the Court decided
Holding
A state offense counts as a §1101(a)(43) “aggravated felony” when it has every element of a listed federal crime except one requiring a connection to interstate or foreign commerce. Because Congress lacks general constitutional authority to punish crimes, most federal offenses include a jurisdictional element to tie the substantive crime to one of Congress’s enumerated powers. State legislatures are not similarly constrained, and so state crimes do not need such a jurisdictional hook. That discrepancy creates the issue here—whether a state offense lacking a jurisdictional element but otherwise mirroring a particular federal offense can be said to be “described” by that offense. 764 F. 3d 152, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
The Court explained that Congress has limited power to punish crimes, so federal laws often require a link to interstate commerce; states do not face that same limit. It concluded that the missing link does not matter when the state offense otherwise matches every element of the listed federal crime.
The vote
From the opinions
“Luna thus was not convicted of an offense “described in” the federal statute. Case closed.”
What's next
The Court’s rule governs how immigration decision-makers classify state offenses that match a listed federal crime except for the commerce requirement. Luna remains ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Luna Torres
More questions
- What did Sotomayor criticize?
- She said the majority used context to read the federal law’s interstate-commerce requirement out of the statute.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.