Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-437_new_qol1.pdf
Page Number: 6

4 

UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO 

Opinion of the Court 

U. S. 1 (2004), that “a higher mens rea than the merely ac-
cidental or negligent conduct involved in a DUI offense” is 
necessary  for  an  offense  to  qualify  as  a  crime  of  violence.  
Id., at 11.  Accordingly, Palomar-Santiago’s DUI conviction 
was not a crime of violence under 18 U. S. C. §16(a), and so 
not  an  aggravated  felony  under  8  U. S. C.  §1101(a)(43).  
Palomar-Santiago’s removal order thus never should have 
issued.  See Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U. S. 298, 
312–313 (1994) (“A judicial construction of a statute is an 
authoritative  statement  of  what  the  statute  meant  before 
as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that 
construction”). 
  In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was found again living in the 
United States.  A grand jury indicted him on one count of 
unlawful reentry after removal.  Palomar-Santiago moved 
to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his prior re-
moval  order  was  invalid  in  light  of  Leocal.    The  District 
Court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit affirmed.  813 Fed. Appx. 282 (2020). 
  Both  courts  were  bound  by  Ninth  Circuit  precedent 
providing  that  defendants  are  “excused  from  proving  the 
first  two  requirements”  of  §1326(d)  if  they  were  “not  con-
victed of an offense that made [them] removable.”  United 
States v. Ochoa, 861 F. 3d 1010, 1015 (2017).  Other Courts 
of  Appeals  do  not  excuse  similarly  situated  unlawful-
reentry  defendants  from  meeting  §1326(d)’s  first  two  re-
quirements.1  This Court granted certiorari to resolve this 
disagreement.  592 U. S. ___ (2021). 

—————— 

1

 See, e.g., United States v. Parrales-Guzman, 922 F. 3d 706, 706–708 
(CA5 2019); United States v. Watkins, 880 F. 3d 1221, 1224–1226 (CA11 
2018) (per curiam); United States v. Gil-Lopez, 825 F. 3d 819, 823 (CA7 
2016); United States v. Soto-Mateo, 799 F. 3d 117, 120–124 (CA1 2015); 
United States v. Rodriguez, 420 F. 3d 831, 833–835 (CA8 2005); United 
States  v.  Rivera-Nevarez,  418  F. 3d  1104,  1107–1111  (CA10  2005); 
United States v. Martinez-Rocha, 337 F. 3d 566, 568–570 (CA6 2003).