The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal border agents have the power to remove green card holders, who are considered lawful permanent residents, if they have committed a “moral turpitude” crime.
Supreme Court Ruling
The panel that is majority conservative reached a 6-3 decision in which Justice Clarence Thomas in Blanche v. Lau wrote that border agents do not bear the burden of proof to provide “clear and convincing evidence” that an immigrant re-entering the country after traveling abroad committed a crime before refusing their entry, but only that there was a reason to believe a crime had been committed.
“The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement,” Thomas wrote. This ruling allows border officials to remove lawful permanent resident (LPR) status as they arrive at the country’s ports of entry.
“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’ when that burden is nowhere in the statute or even Board precedent,” he concluded.
Chinese Citizen Denied Re-Entry
This case arose when Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and U.S. green card holder, was denied entry at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in June 2012. He was returning from a trip to China when officials denied him re-entry because he was facing trademark counterfeiting charges alleging he sold nearly $300,000 worth of counterfeit shorts in New Jersey at the time.
However, those charges should not have originally denied his re-entry, according to officials, but this new ruling will pave the way for future incidents like this and is a huge setback for the plaintiff.
Immigration Laws
The United States immigration law states that any person holding a green card who legally leaves the U.S. for short periods is allowed re-entry, with some exceptions. One of the exceptions considered in the justice’s ruling was that if the green card holder has been convicted of committing “a crime involving moral turpitude,” they could be denied.
Lau pleaded guilty in 2013 to counterfeiting and was deemed deported as a result of his confession. He argued in the contest of his removal that the crime did not meet the criteria of what is considered “moral turpitude.”
Justices Dissent Over Ruling
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed disagreement with the majority ruling, along with justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. They argued that the government should bear the burden of proving that a green card holder committed a crime before removing their status in the United States.
In her 17-page dissent, Jackson wrote, “I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check.”
“[U]nder the plain terms of the statute,” she wrote, the government has “no discretion” to deny a green card holder or permanent resident entry into the country if it does not have the ability to justify its decision.
“[T]he removal hearing—which can come months, or even years, after the LPR is demoted to ‘seeking an admission’ status and paroled in—is too late for the Government to carry its burden,” Jackson argued.
Under this ruling, lawful permanent residents will face serious repercussions. “[A] demotion to the status of ‘seeking an admission’ is not costless,” she wrote. They could now “be immediately detained or paroled.” However, parole can lead to “serious negative repercussions,” such as the individual losing their permanent green card and ability to work.
“It is a fundamental maxim in our country that all are innocent until proven guilty,” Jackson wrote. “Lau was divested of his already-admitted status, deemed an applicant for admission, and paroled solely on the basis of” the charges against him.
