INA in the Supreme Court

Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on whether the government is required to prove a connection between a drug possession conviction and a congressionally defined controlled substance for removal of a permanent resident under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA is the immigration law of the land and it allows for removal of non-US citizens for violations pertaining to controlled substances. The case is Mellouli v. Holder. Mellouli is a lawful permanent resident of the US from Tuisia. He was convicted for possession of drug paraphernalia in Kansas, but it is not clear what that substance it is and whether it is controlled or not. Mr. Mellouli argued that the government cannot remove him without proving the connection between the conviction and substance. He was appealing because the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the conviction was covered under the INA.

Lawful permanent residents can be removed for any number of reasons. One of the benefits of US citizenship is a safeguard against removal. Permanent residents can be removed for drug convictions, aggravated felonies, among other crimes, even though they have legal status beyond just holding a visa. There are avenues for relief that can be argued for during removal proceedings. Famously, three permanent residents were removed for illicit group membership, despite having families of American citizens and being permanent residents for thirty years.

It is unknown when the Supreme Court will release its opinion of Mellouli v. Holder. We will be keeping an eye on this case, as it speaks on the important burden the government has in removing a non-citizen.