The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal immigration officers do not need clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a disqualifying crime before denying that person formal admission into the United States after travel abroad.
In a 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, the court sided with the federal government and overturned a lower court ruling that had imposed a higher evidentiary standard on border officials. The decision could make it easier for immigration authorities to initiate removal proceedings against some green card holders when they return to the country.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, joined by the court’s conservative justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Case Stemmed From 2012 Airport Encounter
The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States.
In June 2012, Lau returned to the United States after a trip to China. At the time, he had been charged in New Jersey with trademark counterfeiting for allegedly selling nearly $300,000 in counterfeit shorts.
Rather than formally admitting Lau into the country as a lawful permanent resident, immigration officers placed him on parole. They deferred a decision on his admissibility because of the pending criminal charge.
A year later, Lau pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting and was sentenced to two years of probation. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings, arguing that his conviction made him inadmissible under federal immigration law.
Lau challenged the government’s actions, arguing that immigration officers improperly treated him as someone seeking admission when he returned to the country in 2012.
Court Rejects Higher Evidence Requirement
A federal appeals court previously ruled in Lau’s favor, concluding that immigration officers needed clear and convincing evidence that he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before denying him admission as a lawful permanent resident.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
Writing for the majority, Thomas said the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to satisfy that standard when making admission decisions at ports of entry.
“Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” Thomas wrote, the Associated Press reported.
The justice said the evidentiary standard cited by the lower court applies during removal proceedings rather than during initial encounters at the border.
Thomas also rejected the argument that a lawful permanent resident must first be convicted of a crime before immigration authorities can treat the person as seeking admission.
According to the opinion, federal law allows officials to regard a green card holder as seeking admission if authorities determine that the individual committed a qualifying crime, even if a conviction is later entered.
“We decline to read into the INA an additional clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers entrusted with making quick judgments on the spot,” Thomas wrote, per SCOTUSblog.
Dissent Warns Of Consequences For Green Card Holders
Jackson sharply criticized the ruling, arguing that it weakens protections for lawful permanent residents and grants the government excessive authority.
“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check,” Jackson wrote, per AP.
She argued that lawful permanent residents should not lose their protected status solely based on allegations before the government proves they committed a disqualifying crime.
Jackson said individuals who are treated as applicants for admission rather than returning permanent residents can face significant consequences, including detention, parole restrictions, loss of employment authorization, and potential removal from the country.
“It is a fundamental maxim in our country that all are innocent until proven guilty,” Jackson wrote, SCOTUSblog reported.
She contended that Congress intended stronger safeguards for lawful permanent residents than those recognized by the majority.
Immigration Debate Continues
The decision comes as the Supreme Court continues to weigh several high-profile immigration disputes amid President Donald Trump’s broader immigration enforcement agenda.
Supporters of the ruling said it gives immigration authorities greater flexibility to address cases involving lawful permanent residents accused of serious misconduct.
Advancing American Freedom, an organization founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, praised the decision as an important tool for removing individuals who abuse the privilege of lawful permanent resident status.
Critics, including the Alliance for Justice, warned that the ruling could make it easier for the government to revoke or challenge green card protections before criminal allegations have been fully resolved.
The ruling sends the case back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.
