Luna Torres v. Lynch
The Court decided the interpretation of section 1101(a)(43) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes "aggravated felony" as a possible reason for deporting a non-citizen.
578 U.S. 452 · No. 14-1096 · 2015 term · Roberts Court
Decided May 19, 2016 · argued Nov 3, 2015
Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: immigration
Majority opinion: Elena Kagan
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Affirmed. Luna Torres lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Luna Torres was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. 452 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided the interpretation of section 1101(a)(43) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes "aggravated felony" as a possible reason for deporting a non-citizen. The INA specifies certain offenses described in the federal criminal code as qualifying as an aggravated felony. The question before the court was if the plaintiff Jorge Luna Torres, who had been convicted under a state arson statute mostly identical to the federal statute but lacking an interstate or foreign commerce element in the federal law, fell under this definition of aggravated felony. The Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit original decision: the difference was merely "jurisdictional", and Torres still qualified for the accelerated deportation process described under the INA.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2015 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Elena KaganWrote the majority opinion
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Sonia SotomayorWrote a dissent
Stephen BreyerJoined a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Luna TorresAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Respondent
- LynchImmigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Statutory construction; Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 19, 2016DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: affirmed. Luna Torres lost.
- Nov 3, 2015ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: petition denied or appeal dismissed.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
7 other argued cases since 1946 on statutory construction of criminal laws: immigration, newest first.
- United States v. Palomar-Santiago141 S. Ct. 1615May 24, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1615Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Juan Resendiz-Ponce549 U.S. 102Jan 19, 2007 · 549 U.S. 102Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- United States v. Campos-Serrano404 U.S. 293Dec 20, 1971 · 404 U.S. 293Criminal procedure4–36–3 band
- United States v. Cores356 U.S. 405May 19, 1958 · 356 U.S. 405Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Sugden et ux. v. United States.351 U.S. 916Apr 30, 1956 · 351 U.S. 916Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States v. Evans333 U.S. 483Mar 15, 1948 · 333 U.S. 483Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Lem Hoy330 U.S. 724Apr 7, 1947 · 330 U.S. 724Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.