Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 21

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

ALITO, J., concurring
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 20–1410 and 21–5261 
_________________ 

20–1410 

XIULU RUAN, PETITIONER 
v. 
UNITED STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

21–5261 

SHAKEEL KAHN, PETITIONER 
v. 
UNITED STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

[June 27, 2022] 

JUSTICE  ALITO,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  joins,  and
with whom JUSTICE BARRETT joins as to Parts I–A, I–B, and
II, concurring in the judgment. 

In criminal law, the distinction between the elements of 
an  offense  and  an  affirmative  defense  is  well-known  and 
important.  In these cases, however, the Court recognizes a
new hybrid that has some characteristics of an element and 
some characteristics of an affirmative defense.  The conse-
quences of this innovation are hard to foresee, but the result 
may well be confusion and disruption.  That risk is entirely 
unnecessary.

We granted certiorari in these cases to decide whether a
physician  may  be  convicted  of  dispensing  or  distributing 
drugs  by  prescription  under  a  provision  of  the  Controlled
Substances Act of 1970 (CSA), 21 U. S. C. §841(a), if he or 
she believed in good faith that the prescription was within 
the course of professional practice.  In my view, there is a