Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf
Page Number: 24

2 

MASLENJAK v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

They  all  write  their  names  on  a  piece  of  paper  and  place
the slips in a hat to see who will get the tickets for the big 
game  with  their  team’s  traditional  rival.    One  of  the 
friends puts his name in twice, and his name is drawn.  I 
would say that he “procured” the tickets “contrary to” the
rules of the drawing even though he might have won if he 
had put his name in only once.

Here  is  another  example.    A  runner  who  holds  the 
world’s  record  in  an  event  wants  to  make  sure  she  wins 
the  gold  medal  at  the  Olympics,  so  she  takes  a  perfor-
mance enhancing drug.  She wins the race but fails a drug 
test  and  is  disqualified.  The  second-place  time  is  slow, 
and  sportswriters  speculate  that  she  would  have  won
without  taking  the  drug.    But  it  would  be  entirely  con-
sistent  with  standard  English  usage  for  the  race  officials
to  say  that  she  “procured”  her  first-place  finish  “contrary
to” the governing rules.
  As these examples illustrate—and others could be added—
the  language  of  18  U. S. C.  §1425(a)  does  not  require 
that an illegal false statement have a demonstrable effect
on  the  naturalization  decision.  Instead,  the  statute  ap-
plies  when  a  person  makes  an  illegal  false  statement  to 
obtain naturalization, and that false statement is material 
to the outcome.  I see no indication that Congress meant to 
require more.

One  additional  point  is  worth  mentioning.

  Section 
1425(a)  not  only  makes  it  a  crime  to  procure  naturaliza-
tion contrary to law; it applies equally to any person who 
“attempts to procure, contrary to law . . . . naturalization.”
Therefore,  if  a  defendant  knowingly  performs  a  substan-
tial  act  that  he  or  she  thinks  will  procure  naturalization, 
that  is  sufficient  for  conviction.    See  United  States  v. 
Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U. S. 102, 106–108 (2007).