Supreme Court of the United States

Name: Pugin v. Garland
Author: Supreme Court of the United States

Pugin v. Garland (2023)

Summary

“Pugin v. Garland”, published in 2023, is a work by Supreme Court of the United States. It explores elements such as obstruction of justice, investigation and offenses.

Quotes from Pugin v. Garland (Supreme Court of the United States)

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ Individuals can obstruct the process of justice even when an investigation or proceeding is not pending. For example, a murderer may threaten to kill a witness if the witness reports information to the police. Such an act is no less obstructive merely because the government has yet to catch on and begin an investigation. As the Solicitor General persuasively states, one can obstruct the wheels of justice even before the wheels have begun to move; indeed, obstruction of justice is often “most effective” when it prevents “an investigation or proceeding from commencing in the first place.” ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ The Court’s nebulous reading of “relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness,” §1101 (a) (43) (S) (emphasis added) , fails to grapple with this reality. Rather than ask whether a conviction is a categorical match for, say, generic “perjury,” the majority seems to suggest courts should ask if the conviction has “a connection with” generic perjury. If that is what the majority intends, it is not clear what that question means or how courts should go about answering it. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ For example, talk of interfering in a hiring process strongly suggests that hiring-related activities are already underway. Certainly where an upcoming hiring is not even foreseeable, it would be unusual to talk of such inference. Yet, the majority does not require even a foreseeable investigation or proceeding in order for there to be obstruction of justice. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ The flaw in this syllogism is, of course, premise (1) . By assuming, up front and without reason, that dissuading a witness from reporting a crime qualifies as obstruction of justice, the Court oversteps. Congress could, if it wanted, add witness tampering to the INA’s lengthy list of aggravated felonies, just as it did with the list of offenses at §1101 (a) (15) (U) (iii) , but it has not done so. The Court’s decision today makes that judgment call for Congress. “Our license to interpret statutes does not include the power to engage in such freewheeling judicial policymaking.” ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ Section 5399 is the predecessor of the modern omnibus or catchall obstruction of justice clause, which is codified at 18 U. S. C. §1503, and which prohibits endeavoring “to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.” In recognition of this through line, this Court held, just a year before the enactment of §1101 (a) (43) (S) , that “a person lacking knowledge of a pending proceeding” cannot be convicted under §1503. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ This Court has generally used the “categorical approach” to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as an “aggravated felony” under §1101 (a) (43) . Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U. S. 385, 389 (2017) ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ This context confirms Blackstone is referring to impeding a witness from testifying at a proceeding, because otherwise it would not be a contempt against the king’s courts. ↑ While it is possible to talk about interfering with or impeding a process before it has even begun, those phrases more naturally connote an effect on a process that is ongoing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ See §1101 (a) (15) (U) (iii) (covering among other things “being held hostage; peonage; involuntary servitude; slave trade; kidnapping; abduction; unlawful criminal restraint; false imprisonment” as well as “any similar activity in violation of Federal, State, or local criminal law”) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ In our constitutional system, the Legislature makes legal policy judgments regarding the particular circumstances that trigger the consequences that are associated with criminal convictions. Accord, United States v. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Pugin v. Garland (2023)

“ See ante, at 7, n. 2. ↑ The five other original chapter 73 offenses are §1501 (“Assault on process server”) ; §1502 (“Resistance to extradition agent”) ; §1504 (“Influencing juror by writing”) ; §1505 (“Influencing or injuring witness before agencies and committees”) ; and §1506 (“Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail”) . These provisions remain in chapter 73 to this day, with only modest revisions that do not change the need for a pending investigation or proceeding. ”

Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Quotes from Pugin v. Garland (Supreme Court of the United States)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature