Jackson, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 22–23 and 22–331
JEAN FRANCOIS PUGIN, PETITIONER
22–23v.22–23
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER
22–331v.22–331
FERNANDO CORDERO-GARCIA, AKA FERNANDO CORDERO
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 22, 2023]
Justice Jackson, concurring.
I agree with the Court that the Ninth Circuit wrongly embraced a pending-proceeding requirement when it assessed what types of prior offenses qualify as “offense[s] relating to obstruction of justice” under 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(S), for purposes of determining the “aggravated felon[ies]” that render noncitizens deportable, §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). This means, of course, that I also agree with the Court’s conclusion that the Fourth Circuit rightly rejected any such pending-proceeding requirement.
I write separately to highlight one (possibly sufficient) reason why a predicate offense need not have a nexus to a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding in order to qualify as “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” within the meaning of this immigration statute. The
