Page:Pugin v. Garland.pdf/27

Rh birth to live young, even though the platypus is an exception to that rule. Section 1512 thus proves the opposite of what the majority takes it to prove.

The Court instead reasons that because §1512 does not require a pending investigation or proceeding, the answer to the question “Does generic obstruction of justice require a pending investigation or proceeding?” must be “No.” That line of thinking, however, simply assumes that §1512 falls within generic obstruction (it assumes the platypus is heartland mammalia). In so assuming, the Court loses sight of the task at hand, which is, again, to answer a question about the trunk of obstruction of justice, not more broadly defined offshoots. See Descamps, 570 U. S., at 257. All signs point toward treating §1512 as just such an offshoot, at least insofar as it explicitly chooses to dispose with the requirement that a proceeding “be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense.” §1512(f)(1).

The text of the INA itself confirms that Congress did not understand obstruction of justice to encompass all witness