Moncrieffe v. Holder
Moncrieffe v. Holder | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Holding | |
If a noncitizen’s conviction for a marijuana distribution offense fails to establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana, it is not an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan |
Dissent | Thomas |
Dissent | Alito |
Laws applied | |
Immigration and Nationality Act (1952) Controlled Substances Act |
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013), is a
Background
Adrian Moncrieffe is a
Georgia's marijuana law, like in most other states, defines possession with intent to distribute marijuana for no remuneration and distributing a small amount of marijuana charge under the same statute, which made his case. Under federal marijuana law, the prior charge is treated as a possession case if it involves a small amount of marijuana, which cleared Moncrieffe from having committing an aggravated felony of drug trafficking under immigration law.
The
Decision
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, agreed with Moncrieffe's lawyers that he was still eligible for the exception for possession of small amounts of marijuana under federal law. He would thus be able to appeal his deportation with immigration officials.
See also
References
- ^ Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013).
- ^ Campbell, Ryan (June 5, 2013). "Marijuana and Immigration". Huffington Post. Retrieved June 7, 2013.
- ^ Denniston, Lyle (April 23, 2013). "Opinion recap: Easing a severe drug law". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved June 7, 2013.
- ^ Davis, Lee (May 11, 2013). "Supreme Court Says Small Amounts Of Marijuana Not Enough To Warrant Automatic Deportation". The Chattanoogan. Retrieved June 7, 2013.
- 5th Cir.2011).
External links
- Text of Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)