Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1034_3dq4.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

14 

MELLOULI v. LYNCH 

Opinion of the Court 

The  Government  offers  no  cogent  reason  why  its  position
is limited to state drug schedules that have a “substantial 
overlap” with the federal schedules.  Brief for Respondent
31.  A statute with any overlap would seem to be related to 
federally  controlled  drugs. 
Indeed,  the  Government’s 
position  might  well  encompass  convictions  for  offenses 
related  to  drug  activity  more  generally,  such  as  gun  pos-
session,  even  if  those  convictions  do  not  actually  involve 
drugs  (let  alone  federally  controlled  drugs).    The  Solicitor 
General, while resisting this particular example, acknowl-
edged  that  convictions  under  statutes  “that  have  some 
connection 
fall  within 
§1227(a)(2)(B)(i).  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  36.  This  sweeping 
interpretation  departs  so  sharply  from  the  statute’s  text
and  history  that  it  cannot  be  considered  a  permissible 
reading.

indirectly”  might 

to  drugs 

In sum, construction of §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) must be faithful 
to  the  text,  which  limits  the  meaning  of  “controlled  sub-
stance,” for removal purposes, to the substances controlled
under  §802.    We  therefore  reject  the  argument  that  any
drug  offense  renders  an  alien  removable,  without  regard 
to the appearance of the drug on a §802 schedule.  Instead, 
to  trigger  removal  under  §1227(a)(2)(B)(i),  the  Govern-
ment must connect an element of the alien’s conviction to 
a drug “defined in [§802].” 

* 

* 

* 

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the U. S. Court 

of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed. 

It is so ordered.