Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1034_3dq4.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 13–1034 
_________________ 

MOONES MELLOULI, PETITIONER v. LORETTA E. 

LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 1, 2015]

 JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  ALITO  joins,

dissenting. 

The  Court  reverses  the  decision  of  the  United  States 
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on the ground that
it  misapplied  the  federal  removal  statute.  It  rejects  the 
Government’s  interpretation  of  that  statute,  which  would 
supply an alternative ground for affirmance.  Yet it offers 
no interpretation of its own.  Lower courts are thus left to 
guess which convictions qualify an alien for removal under 
8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and the majority has deprived 
them of their only guide: the statutory text itself.  Because 
the  statute  renders  an  alien  removable  whenever  he  is 
convicted  of  violating  a  law  “relating  to”  a  federally  con-
trolled substance, I would affirm. 

I 

With one exception not applicable here, §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) 
makes  removable  “[a]ny  alien  who  at  any  time  after  ad-
mission has been convicted of a  violation of (or a conspir- 
acy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, 
the  United  States,  or  a  foreign  country  relating  to  a  con-
trolled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21).”  I 
would  hold,  consistent  with  the  text,  that  the  provision
requires  that  the  conviction  arise  under  a  “law  or  regula-
tion  of  a  State,  the  United  States,  or  a  foreign  country