On 23 April the US Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Moncrieffe vs Holder. The case revolved around the issue of whether a conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana with no intent to supply counted as an ‘aggravated felony’ for the purposes of deporting an illegal immigrant from the US. The Supreme Court held that it did not.

The argument revolved around when such possession was grounds for removal of an immigrant who, in the case of Mr Moncrieffe, had entered the United States illegally aged only three.

According to a blog on the US lawprofessors site: “What is perhaps most striking about the facts of the case is that a traffic stop and conviction for possessing less than two marijuana cigarettes put Moncrieffe’s entire life in the United States in jeopardy. What also is striking is that possession of such a small quantity of marijuana can lead to a conviction under a state law prohibiting the possession with intent to distribute.”

Expert opinion also revolved around the amount he was caught with when he was stopped in Georgia in 2009. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority opinion that the 1.3 grammes of the drug he was found with was enough for only two or three ‘joints’ for social sharing.

The reason such a learned lady had such information at her fingertips was explained by US legal blog Above the Law. Apparently, it is laid down in the US Sentencing Guidelines Manual.

Staci Zaretski, the commentator from Above the Law continued: “Here, Sotomayor said there was just too much ambiguity to subject Moncrieffe to automatic deportation. Besides, according to the good justice, even though the government would argue otherwise, our immigration courts are too ‘overburdened’ to make the proper calls in these cases anyway. The results would simply have been ‘absurd’.”

She concluded with speculation of what the Supreme Court would have made had the case originated in one of the states where marijuana has been legalised.