Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1034_3dq4.pdf
Page Number: 21

4 

MELLOULI v. LYNCH 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

§1227(a)(2)(C) (emphasis added).  This language explicitly
requires  that  the  object  of  the  offense  fit  within  a  federal 
definition.    Other  provisions  adopt  similar  requirements. 
See,  e.g.,  §1227(a)(2)(E)(i)  (making  removable  “[a]ny  alien
who  . . .  is  convicted  of  a  crime  of  domestic  violence,” 
where  “the  term  ‘crime  of  domestic  violence’  means  any
crime  of  violence  (as  defined  in  section  16  of  title  18)  . . . 
committed  by”  a  person  with  a  specified  family  relation-
ship with the victim); see generally §1101(a)(43) (defining 
certain  aggravated  felonies  using  federal  definitions  as
elements).  That Congress, in this provision, required only 
that  a  law  relate  to  a  federally  controlled  substance,  as 
opposed  to  involve  such  a  substance,  suggests  that  it
understood “relating to” as having its ordinary and expan-
sive  meaning.  See,  e.g.,  Russello  v.  United  States,  464 
U. S. 16, 23 (1983).
  Applying this interpretation of “relating to,” a conviction
under  Kansas’  drug  paraphernalia  statute  qualifies  as  a
predicate  offense  under  §1227(a)(2)(B)(i).    That  state 
statute  prohibits  the  possession  or  use  of  drug  parapher-
nalia  to  “store,  contain,  conceal,  inject,  ingest,  inhale  or
otherwise introduce a controlled substance into the human 
body.”  Kan. Stat. Ann. §21–5709(b)(2) (2013 Cum. Supp.).
And, as used in this statute, a “controlled substance” is a 
substance  that  appears  on  Kansas’  schedules,  §21–
5701(a),  which  in  turn  consist  principally  of  federally 
controlled  substances.  Ante,  at  3;  see  also  Brief  for  Peti-
tioner 3 (listing nine substances on Kansas’ schedules that 
were not on the federal schedules at the time of Mellouli’s 
arrest); Brief for Respondent 8 (noting that, at the time of
Mellouli’s  arrest,  more  than  97  percent  of  the  named 
substances  on  Kansas’  schedules  were  federally  con-
trolled).  The  law  certainly  “relat[es]  to  a  controlled  sub-
stance  (as  defined  in  section  802  of  title  21)”  because  it 
prohibits  conduct  involving  controlled  substances  falling 
within the federal definition in §802.