Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

4 

MASLENJAK v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

played any role in her obtaining citizenship.  See 821 F. 3d 
675,  685–686  (2016).  That  decision  created  a  conflict  in 
the  Circuit  Courts.1  We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  it,
580 U. S. ___ (2017), and we now vacate the Sixth Circuit’s
judgment. 

II
 
A 

Section  1425(a),  the  parties  agree,  makes  it  a  crime  to 
commit some other illegal act in connection with naturali-
zation.  But the parties dispute the nature of the required
connection.  Maslenjak  argues  that  the  relationship  must
be “causal” in kind: A person “procures” her naturalization
“contrary to law,” she contends, only if a predicate crime in
some way “contribut[ed]” to her gaining citizenship.  Brief 
for Petitioner 21.  By contrast, the Government proposes a
basically  chronological  link:  Section  1425(a),  it  urges,
“punishes the commission of other violations of law in the 
course  of  procuring  naturalization”—even  if  the  illegality
could  not  have  had  any  effect  on  the  naturalization  deci-
sion.  Brief  for  United  States  14  (emphasis  added).    We 
conclude that Maslenjak has the better of this argument.

We begin, as usual, with the statutory text.  In ordinary
usage,  “to  procure”  something  is  “to  get  possession  of ”  it.
Webster’s  Third  New  International  Dictionary  1809 
(2002);  accord,  Black’s  Law  Dictionary  1401  (10th  ed.
2014)  (defining  “procure”  as  “[t]o  obtain  (something),  esp.
by special effort or means”).  So to “procure . . . naturaliza-
tion”  means  to  obtain  naturalization  (or,  to  use  another 

—————— 

1 Compare  821  F. 3d  675,  685–686  (CA6  2016)  (case  below),  with 
United States v. Munyenyezi, 781 F. 3d 532, 536 (CA1 2015) (requiring 
the  Government  to  make  some  showing  that  a  misrepresentation 
mattered to the naturalization decision); United States v. Latchin, 554 
F. 3d 709, 712–715 (CA7 2009) (same); United States v. Alferahin, 433 
F. 3d 1148, 1154–1156 (CA9 2006) (same); United States v. Aladekoba, 
61 Fed. Appx. 27, 28 (CA4 2003) (same).