Negusie v. Holder

Summary

Justice Scalia concurred, agreeing with the Court that the statute is ambiguous regarding coerced assistance and that a remand to the agency is appropriate to clarify its interpretation. He reasoned that the agency has discretion to bar asylum for coerced persecutors under any rule that is soundly reasoned and not based on an erroneous understanding of prior precedent. Justice Thomas, dissenting, argued the statute is unambiguous and precludes inquiry into voluntariness. Justice Stevens, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed the Court should decide the statutory question rather than delegate it to the agency.