Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1034_3dq4.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

6 

MELLOULI v. LYNCH 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

defined in [§802],’ ”  ante, at 9–10, n. 9.  But the definition 
of controlled substances does play a role in my interpreta-
tion,  by  requiring  that  the  law  bear  some  relationship  to 
federally  controlled  substances.    Although  we  need  not 
establish  the  precise  boundaries  of  that  relationship  in
this  case  given  that  Kansas’  paraphernalia  law  clearly 
qualifies  under  any  reasonable  definition  of  “relating  to,” 
the definition of controlled substances imposes a meaning-
ful limit on the statutes that qualify. 

B 
  The majority appears to conclude that a statute “relates 
to” a federally controlled substance if its “definition of the 
offense of conviction” necessarily includes as an element of 
that  offense  a  federally  controlled  substance.  Ante,  at  6. 
The text will not bear this meaning. 

The  first  problem  with  the  majority’s  interpretation  is 
that  it  converts  a  removal  provision  expressly  keyed  to 
features  of  the  statute  itself  into  one  keyed  to  features  of 
the underlying generic offense.  To understand the differ-
ence, one need look no further than this Court’s decision in 
Moncrieffe  v.  Holder,  569  U. S.  ___  (2013).    In  that  case, 
removal  was  predicated  on  the  generic  offense  of  “illicit
trafficking in a controlled substance.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., 
at 2).  Thus, in order to satisfy the federal criteria, it was
necessary for the state offense at issue to have as elements 
the same elements that make up that generic offense.  Id., 
at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  5).    By  contrast,  §1227(a)(2)(B)(i)  does 
not  refer  to  a  generic  offense  for  which  we  must  discern
the relevant criteria from its nature.  Instead, it establishes 
the  relevant  criteria  explicitly,  and  does  so  for  the  law
of conviction itself rather than for some underlying generic 
offense—that is, the law of conviction must “relat[e] to” a
federally controlled substance.

The only plausible way of reading the text here to refer
to  a  generic  offense  that  has  as  one  element  the  involve-