Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1034_3dq4.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

court convictions, like Mellouli’s, in which “[no] controlled substance
(as defined in [§802])” figures as an element of the offense.  Construc-
tion of §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) must be faithful to the text, which limits the
meaning  of  “controlled  substance,”  for  removal  purposes,  to  the  sub-
stances controlled under §802.  Accordingly, to trigger removal under
§1227(a)(2)(B)(i), the Government must connect an element of the al-
ien’s conviction to a drug “defined in [§802].”  Pp. 11–14. 

719 F. 3d 995, reversed. 

GINSBURG,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J.,  and  SCALIA,  KENNEDY,  BREYER,  SOTOMAYOR,  and  KAGAN,  JJ., 
joined.  THOMAS,  J.,  filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  in  which  ALITO,  J., 
joined.