Lopez v. Gonzales
The Supreme Court ruled that a state drug crime only counts as an 'aggravated felony' under federal immigration law if the same conduct would be a felony under federal drug law — not merely because the state happened to label it a felony.
The decision blocks the government from using tougher state drug-possession laws to trigger mandatory deportation and loss of immigration relief in cases where federal law treats the same conduct far more leniently, as a misdemeanor.
“Reading §924(c) the Government’s way, then, would often turn simple possession into trafficking, just what the English language tells us not to expect, and that result makes us very wary of the Government’s position.”
Explaining why the government's broad reading of 'trafficking' didn't match ordinary usage.
How it got here: An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled Lopez's crime was an aggravated felony; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review to resolve a circuit split.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Jose Antonio Lopez, a legal permanent resident, pleaded guilty in South Dakota to helping another person possess cocaine, which state law punished as a felony. Under federal drug law, however, simple possession is generally only a misdemeanor. Immigration officials sought to deport him and deny him discretionary relief on the ground that his state conviction was an 'aggravated felony.'
The question before the Court
If a state treats drug possession as a felony, but federal law treats the same conduct as a misdemeanor, can that state conviction count as a deportable "aggravated felony"?
The Court's answer
No — a state drug crime is not automatically an 'aggravated felony' just because the state calls it a felony. The Court ruled that the federal definition of 'drug trafficking crime' means a crime punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act, not any offense a state happens to punish more harshly. Because Lopez's conduct — helping someone else possess cocaine — was only a misdemeanor under federal drug law, it did not qualify.
The Court reasoned that reading the law the government's way would turn ordinary possession into 'trafficking' in many cases, contrary to normal English usage and Congress's own scheme of distinguishing trafficking felonies from possession misdemeanors. Congress would have needed to say clearly that it meant to let state law control, and nothing in the statute said that.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Immigrants convicted of drug possession under state laws that happen to be stricter than federal law will not automatically be barred from immigration relief or face mandatory deportation. The ruling limits how much a state's own criminal classifications can drive severe federal immigration consequences, producing more uniform treatment nationwide.
What changes now
The case is sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the ruling, meaning Lopez's application for discretionary cancellation of removal can now be considered because his state conviction is not an aggravated felony. This is a final merits decision that resolves a circuit split and will govern how immigration judges and other courts treat similarly mismatched state-felony/federal-misdemeanor drug convictions going forward.
What this does not decide
The Court noted a narrow exception it left intact: some state possession offenses (like repeat possession or possession of more than five grams of cocaine base) that are themselves felonies under federal drug law still count as aggravated felonies. The ruling does not disturb that carve-out or address every state drug classification scheme.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
“It is at least anomalous, if not inconsistent, that an actual misdemeanor may be considered an “aggravated felony.””Thomas's closing objection to the majority's federal-law-based approach.
Justice Thomas argued the statute's plain text requires only that an offense be a felony (under any law) and be capable of punishment under the CSA, without an implied 'as a felony under federal law' requirement. He contended the majority's approach ignores the statutory text, creates ambiguity about the meaning of 'felony,' and would produce anomalies of its own, including treating actual misdemeanors as deportable aggravated felonies in some cases. He would have held Lopez's conviction was an aggravated felony because South Dakota punished it as a felony and it was punishable under the CSA.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Because the statutes did not define 'trafficking,' the Court looked to the term's ordinary meaning, which generally connotes some kind of commercial dealing in drugs, not mere possession.
- The Court found it implausible that Congress meant 'felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act' to cover conduct that is a felony under state law but only a misdemeanor under the federal Act, since that reading would routinely convert simple possession into 'trafficking.'
- The Court read the phrase 'felony punishable under the [Act]' according to normal usage as meaning 'felony as defined by the Act' — i.e., punishable as a felony under federal law — rather than allowing a break between 'felony' and 'punishable under the Act' that would admit state felonies regardless of federal classification.
- The Court concluded that a separate INA sentence saying the aggravated-felony definition applies 'whether in violation of Federal or State law' does two narrower jobs: covering offenses under either sovereign's law when they independently qualify, and confirming that a state offense with the elements of a CSA felony counts — it does not import state felony/misdemeanor labels wholesale.
- The Court noted the government itself had never prosecuted anyone under the parallel federal gun statute using a state felony that was only a federal misdemeanor as the underlying 'drug trafficking crime,' undermining the claim that its broader reading was the natural one.
- Because reading the statute the government's way would make immigration and sentencing consequences turn on inconsistent state criminal classifications despite Congress's own uniform federal scheme, the Court held that a state offense qualifies only if it is punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act.