Pugin v. Garland
In brief
State accessory-after-the-fact convictions can trigger removal under this immigration-law provision without a pending investigation or proceeding.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 22, 2023 · Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court held that a state conviction for accessory after the fact to a felony qualifies as an offense relating to obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act, making a noncitizen eligible for deportation.
- Who it affects
- A qualifying conviction can make a noncitizen removable from the United States. For example, a noncitizen convicted under a state accessory-after-the-fact law may face removal even when no investigation had begun.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
This classification applies even if no formal investigation or proceeding was pending at the time of the offense.
The decision interprets an immigration-law category called an aggravated felony, a category of crimes that can trigger removal.
Question presented
Is Virginia’s offense of accessory after the fact to a felony an “offense relating to obstruction of justice” under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
What the Court decided
Holding
An offense may “relat[e] to obstruction of justice” under §1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. Federal law provides that noncitizens convicted of a federal or state crime constituting an “aggravated felony” are removable from the United States. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Congress expanded the definition of “aggravated felony” in 1996 to include offenses “relating to obstruction of justice.” §1101(a)(43)(S). No. 22–23, 19 F. 4th 437, affirmed
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Jacksonwrote separately
From the opinions
“An offense may “relat[e] to obstruction of justice” under §1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.”
“From early American laws, to dictionaries, to modern federal and state obstruction statutes, interference with an ongoing investigation or proceeding is at the core of what it means to be “an offense relating to obstruction of justice,” 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(S).”
What's next
Lower courts and immigration agencies must apply the Court’s interpretation when deciding whether qualifying state convictions make noncitizens removable. Affected noncitizens may face removal based on convictions that do not require a pending investigation or proceeding.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: Pugin
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Pugin v. Garland?
- The Court said an accessory-after-the-fact offense can be related to obstruction of justice even without a pending investigation or proceeding.
- Who won Pugin v. Garland?
- The government prevailed. The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit and reversed and sent back the Ninth Circuit case.
- What does Pugin mean for noncitizens with accessory-after-the-fact convictions?
- Some may be considered removable because their state conviction can qualify under the immigration law’s aggravated-felony category.
- How will lower courts and immigration agencies apply Pugin?
- They must not require a pending investigation or court proceeding before treating a qualifying offense as related to obstruction of justice.
- Is the pending-investigation requirement still law after Pugin v. Garland?
- No. The Court rejected a requirement that an investigation or proceeding be pending for this immigration-law provision to apply.
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.