Opinion of the Court
One final point bears emphasis: To the extent any doubt remains about whether §1101(a)(43)(S) requires that an investigation or proceeding be pending, the phrase “relating to obstruction of justice” resolves the doubt. Cf. Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U. S. 798, 811–812, n. 11 (2015). The phrase “relating to” ensures that this statute covers offenses that have “a connection with” obstruction of justice—which surely covers common obstruction offenses that can occur when an investigation or proceeding is not pending. Coventry Health Care of Mo., Inc. v. Nevils, 581 U. S. 87, 96 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). By contrast, in defining certain other aggravated felonies in this statute, Congress did not employ the broad phrase “relating to.” See, e.g., 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(A) (“murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor”).
For all of those reasons, an offense “relating to obstruction of justice” under §1101(a)(43)(S) does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.[1]
- ↑ As interpreted by this Court, a few obstruction statutes require that an investigation or proceeding be reasonably foreseeable. See, e.g., Marinello v. United States, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 11). Those decisions interpreted specific statutory language and did not rule that obstruction offenses in general have a foreseeability requirement (which would have been incorrect, in any event). Moreover, the Solicitor General explains that offenses “relating to obstruction of justice” require an intent to interfere with the legal process. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6–8, 18, 116–117; Brief for Attorney General 23. That mens rea requirement targets the same basic overbreadth concern as a foreseeability requirement and ensures that §1101(a)(43)(S) will not sweep in offenses that are not properly understood as offenses “relating to obstruction of justice.” For example, the Solicitor General concedes that federal misprision of felony is not an offense “relating to obstruction of justice” because, in the Government’s view, the crime does not require an intent to interfere with the legal process. See 18 U. S. C. §4; Reply Brief for Attorney General 26–27. In short, we see no justification for engrafting a separate foreseeability requirement onto the broad and general language of §1101(a)(43)(S).
