Lopez v. Gonzales - SCOTUS Decision

[Al Norris]

Does anyone remember Small v. United States (544 U.S. 385 (2005))?

In that case, the defendant, was convicted in a Japanese Court of smuggling firearms and ammunition into that country. After his prison time was served, he came back to the U.S. and bought a gun. He was then arrested by the BATF and convicted under §922(g)(1) - (felon in possession). The District Court and the 3rd Circuit Court sustained the conviction.

The Supreme Court however, reversed the conviction on the grounds that §922(g)(1)’s phrase “convicted in any court” encompasses only domestic, not foreign, convictions (J. Thomas dissenting - "any" means any!)

Up to speed? Good.

In LOPEZ v. GONZALES 417 F. 3d 934 The Court again provides a rather strange twist that further blurs the line in the sand.

In this case, defendant Lopez, a Resident Alien, was arrested in S.D. for felony trafficking in a controlled substance. (Possession of cocaine - a felony in S.D. but a misdemeanor under Federal CSA Law!) He was sentenced and then was held by the INS for a deportation hearing for violating Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(2) Which defines “drug trafficking crime” to include “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” (CSA).

Held: Conduct made a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the CSA is not a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” for INA purposes.

Again, as in Small, Justice Thomas is the one to dissent (to be fair, in Small, Scalia and Kennedy joined with Thomas in this dissent). Again, Thomas focuses on the wording of the statutes themselves. "Any" either means "any" or it means nothing. Again, Thomas sticks to his principles.

After rereading Small, and reading Lopez, I must admit to changing my mind. I now agree with Thomas in both these cases. If the Congress wanted to delineate between foreign courts and US Courts and if the Congress wanted to delineate between State felonies and Federal felonies, it would have or should have included the necessary verbiage. It didn't. For the Court to look at the word "any" and decide it just doesn't mean "any" is nothing short of revisionist thinking and judicial activism.

Lopez’s state felony offense qualifies as a “drug trafficking crime” as defined in §924(c)(2). A plain reading of this definition identifies two elements: First, the offense must be a felony; second, the offense must be capable of punishment under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). No one disputes that South Dakota punishes Lopez’s crime as a felony. See S. D. Codified Laws §22–42–5 (1988). Likewise, no one disputes that the offense was capable of punishment under the CSA. See 21 U. S. C. §844(a). Lopez’s possession offense therefore satisfies both elements, and the inquiry should end there.

The Court, however, takes the inquiry further by reasoning that only federal felonies qualify as drug trafficking crimes. According to the Court, the definition of drug trafficking crime contains an implied limitation: “any felony punishable [as a felony] under the” CSA. The text does not support this interpretation. Most obviously, the language “as a felony” appears nowhere in §924(c)(2). Without doubt, Congress could have written the definition with this limitation, but it did not.

This principled stand by Thomas is the same one he took in Raich and also Oregon v. Gonzales.

This also places me squarely opposed to Roberts, Scalia and Alito. As they sided with the liberals on Lopez.

 

[SixForSure]

I have to respectfully disagree with regard to the first case. By saying "any means "any"", you are in essence making U.S. Citizens subject to foreign laws even while in the U.S. You could conceivably be denied rights (voting, gun ownership, etc.) under that theory for doing something in a foriegn country (possibly unknowingly) that isn't even illegal in the U.S. If I am a visitor in your house I should be bound by your rules. I should not be bound by your rules in my house.

The Lopez v. Gonzales ruling does seem to be stretching the point a bit.

 

[tyme]

I have to disagree with Thomas on both counts.

1. Small:

Foreign courts need not have any connection with the social/cultural/legal norms of the United States. That reality must take precedence over any semantic argument that "all means all." If Congress really wants to apply foreign convictions as disqualification for firearms ownership, they need to explicitly say "domestic and foreign courts."

2. Lopez v. Gonzales

I read "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" to mean any felony under the CSA, not any felony (in some arbitrary jurisdiction) that happens to be punishable as any sort of crime or misdemeanor under the CSA. But wait a second, there are no federal misdemeanors, are there? I'd have to go read the CSA, which I'm not going to do.

Furthermore, the only reason this SNAFU occurred is that the states and the feds have both taken it upon themselves to pass anti-drug laws. Aside from the fact that neither set of laws is constitutional, only one of {States, Feds} can possibly have jurisdiction over drug laws, and any rational analysis suggests that it would fall under the States' police power, not under the Feds' power via the ICC.

 

[divemedic]

Remember that in many countires it is a felony to be a Christian. There are countries that have convicted American citizens for acts they committed as US soldiers, or as intelligence operatives. They were convicted in absentia by foreign courts for those acts. Does that mean they are now convicted felons?

 

[Trapp]

So what are WE THE PEOPLE supposed to do about inconsistancies in the SCOTUS?

Can't very well vote them out...

 

[gc70]

So what are WE THE PEOPLE supposed to do about inconsistancies in the SCOTUS?

We should demand that our Congressional representatives change the language of the statutes in question.

The courts do not write the laws. If the courts decide that the language of a law is ambiguous and reach a conclusion that we dislike, there is absolutely nothing that prevents Congress from making the law as precise and explicit as necessary to convey their intentions.

 

[Dex Sinister]

Thomas' reasoning, in actuality, breaches the legal element of (and the possibility of) prior notice, by possibly departing completely from any rational conception of the law that could have been contemplated by Congress when passing the law, especially in the case of foreign felonies.

[For non-lawyers, prior notice means that the government can't just criminalize something, never tell anyone, and put you in jail because you broke a law you had no opportunity to know the existence of.]

By obvious implication, Congress must have some rational standard of "criminal" behavior in mind, the breaching of such bar will subject one to certain losses of privilege. Logically, that would be the law of which they are directly aware: Federal law. But ultimately what is important is what standards can rationally be comprehended by those subject to the law, so that they can know in advance whether doing a given act will break that law and subject them to a penalty. Federal law-for-federal law is a standard that is rationally comprehendable.

To interpret congress' intent in passing a law as potentially, "we will remove your rights (or priviliges) because you broke any randomly breachable standard that someone, somewhere in the world criminalizes as 'a felony' " is to reduce the concept of prior notice to utter nonesense - no one can then have rationally-cognizable foreknowledge of which behaviors lead to which consequences, and which do not.

Thomas is just wrong.

Dex }:>=-

 

[Mr. James]

Thank you tyme, this layman's reading of it agrees with yours. As much respect as I have for Justice Thomas, I'd hate to think he would dissent as he did in Small without considering the types of unintended outcomes already mentioned here - one example being the Christian under a sentence of death for proselytizing in Arab Muslim lands.

Shudder to think if he did consider them. . .

 

[invention_45]

The Supreme Court however, reversed the conviction on the grounds that §922(g)(1)’s phrase “convicted in any court” encompasses only domestic, not foreign, convictions (J. Thomas dissenting - "any" means any!)

I buy this decision. I would imagine that the court wants to consider convictions only from courts that could ultimately end up under its jurisdiction, and that is, only courts in the US. Do you think our congress would...OK, let me rephrase, should include "convicted in any court (including, perhaps, one in N. Korea)", it its legislation? I bet the SCOTUS doesn't think they should, and that's as legislative as they're being, which isn't very.

As for the CSA felony, the court's decision is supported by the law on its face. The felony was not a felony under the controlled substances act.

Not to comment on the CSA as it is (that's a disclaimer), but I don't see any oddity about the court's decisions at all, and I find Thomas' dissents rather peculiar. Peculiar usually means activist (has agenda other than applying the law). Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Antipitas, excellent discussion; thank you! I'm a lawyer and STRONGLY in favor of judicial restraint, and using the exact plain English language meaning of words and phrases, and making Congress live with the exact words it chooses, which in turn makes them do their job and make changes if they don't like it, and not allow judges to intersperse their own views as to what they THINK congress meant, when it goes against what is clearly expressed.

With that in mind, I AGREE with you on Small - "any" means just what it says - ANY. It doesn't get any simpler than that - they clearly did not reserve their language to domestic courts. The word "any" is NOT ambiguous.

But I DISagree with you on Lopez, because of the way phrases modify words and phrases in the English language: "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act". What you're saying is to bi-furcate completely the word "felony" and the phrase "punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" - which is fine - that's ONE interpretation - that felony can mean any felony, and the remainder can apply to any crime punishable under the federal act. So, the literal way you read it (and Thomas does) is "any crime punishable under the Act, which is a felony". However, it is at a minimum ambiguous. And when something is ambiguous, the courts MUST in that circumstance interpret the meaning. Here, I think pretty clearly, the BETTER way to interpret it as a matter of English, is that the phrase "punishable under the CSA" is inextricably tied to the word it modifies: "felony" - so that in modifying felony, it strongly implies "felonies which are in fact felonies under THIS act". Again, ambiguous, unlike "any court". Ambiguous sentences must be given in interpretation by the courts until such time as the congress amends, and here, I think they picked the more likely of the 2 potential meanings by Congress.

 

[Eghad]

If the word "any" is used with reference to US Congressional legislation concerning courts it would make sense for it to refer to domestic courts. Congressional legislation only applies to the United States not foriegn countries.

However, I think the word "any" is the lesser of the arguments. The main argument being that foriegn law may not share uniformity and parity with American law.

Suppose Mr. X an American citizen is on an international business trip. His first stop is the UK where at the airport he buys a bottle of Scotch in the duty free shop. His next stop in a muslim country. He arrives in the muslim country and during a customs check Mr. X finds that it is a felony to bring alcohol into this country. in order to expedite things and avoid a stay in jail he pleads guilty and pays a fine. He returns to the US. Mr X is a firearms owner. The BATF discovers that Mr. X has been found guilty of a felony in a foriegn country. They confiscate his firearms and arrest him for being a felon in possesion of a firearm.

Posession of alcohol is not a felony in the United States. People can legally buy and drink alcoholic beverages. This is why the word any should not apply to foriegn courts.

I dont see lack of judicial restraint here, I see the Supreme Court tossing the ball back in to Congress's court and say hey, say what you mean and fix it so it doesnt endanger inidvidual rights. The Supreme Court is the watchdog for the Constitution and rights and were right in ruling this way to protect individual rights.

A criminal justice system should provide uniformity and certainty to citizens. The use of the word "any" to apply to any court in the world created non uniformity and uncertainty as mentioned in the decision. The SC decided to stand on the side of the citizens and not the bureacrats who would have created chaos in the legal system.

 

[Pointer]

I have to respectfully disagree with regard to the first case. By saying "any" means "any", you are in essence making U.S. Citizens subject to foreign laws even while in the U.S. You could conceivably be denied rights (voting, gun ownership, etc.) under that theory for doing something in a foriegn country (possibly unknowingly) that isn't even illegal in the U.S. If I am a visitor in your house I should be bound by your rules. I should not be bound by your rules in my house.

+1

A large part of the problem with the courts "interpreting" the law is that they pay more attention to the "words" (letter) of the law, than they do to the sensible "purposes" of the law!

The word "Any" means "any"... but our legislature writes law for OUR country... NOT for foreign nations...
or Vise-versa...

It is only a co-incidence that gun smuggling is a felony in both Japan and the US. We do not consider a person a felon in this country merely because he pi$$ed off the dictator of Venezuela!

We don't have "one world government" ...YET!

 

[Eghad]

In the Lopez case the court is simply saying that you cant have your cake and eat it to. Dont make the courts second guess what you want. Again a situation that creates uncertainty about what the crime consists of. Once again if regulations create uncertainty which may effect an individuals rights I believe the SC is well within its bounds to rule on it. Once again putting the ball back on the legislative side of the house to fix it.