In several cases over the last three decades, this Court has recognized that certain obstruction-of-jus- tice crimes carry a “nexus requirement’ —the require- ment that a defendant’s conduct have the “natural and probable effect” of obstructing a proceeding and that the defendant know that his conduct will have that effect. The courts of appeals have adopted this requirement for a host of additional obstruction pro- visions, and trial courts routinely instruct juries that they must find a nexus to convict. The Second and Seventh Circuits have both recognized that 18 U.S.C. § 1505, which criminalizes obstruction of “a proceed- ing … before a [U.S.] department or agency,” carries the nexus requirement on which a jury must be properly instructed. But the Ninth Circuit holds that § 1505 carries no nexus requirement and it affirmed the conviction here despite no nexus instruction. The question presented 1s:

Does 18 U.S.C. § 1505 carry the requirement, on which a jury must be instructed, that the defendant’s conduct have a nexus to an agency proceeding?

1. This Court recently explained that, “In the usual course, state courts apply state law when placing children in foster or adoptive homes,” however “when the child is an Indian, a federal statute—the Indian Child Welfare Act—governs.” Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255, 263-64 (2023). Does the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, preclude a state from enacting a state law to determine the foster care or adoptive placement of an Indian child?

2. Under the Oregon Indian Child Welfare Act, upon the consent of an Indian child’s tribe, the state shall transfer the placement process to the tribal authority for a determination of whether to permanently sever the relationship between the parent and the Indian child and thereby effectively terminate the parent’s parental rights. Once the tribal authority renders its decision, the Oregon court shall verify that decision with a judgment of adoption of the Indian child. When the tribal process lacks due process protection for the parent, and the tribal authority effectively terminates the parent’s parental rights by permanently severing the legal relationship between the parent and the Indian child, does the state violate a parent’s right to due process when the state court signs a judgment of adoption without an evidentiary hearing?

| The same legal questions are before this court in M.G.J v. Oregon Department of Human Services, et al; Docket Number 25-6586 (Petition for Certiorari pending). The petition in Docket Number 25-6586 is scheduled for the March 20, 2026, conference.