Santos, J. v. U.S. AG; of 3d Cir.

Summary

Justice Wecht dissents, arguing that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania should have accepted the Third Circuit’s petition to certify the question of whether a Pennsylvania possession‑with‑intent‑to‑deliver (PWID) conviction requires proof of the controlled‑substance identity for removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. He contends that recent Pennsylvania decisions have altered the legal significance of drug identity, rendering the issue unsettled and deserving of certification. The majority denied the petition, but the dissent maintains that comity and the importance of the deportation consequence demand guidance.