Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,
In a 6-3 decision Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, holding that green card holders can be stripped of their status if they traveled abroad while facing criminal charges involving moral turpitude, finding that pending allegations are sufficient to subject them to removal proceedings.
The Court said immigration officials do not need clear and convincing evidence of a crime at the moment a green card holder reenters the U.S. to treat them as an “applicant for admission” by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The case, Blanche v. Lau, was focused on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who became a U.S. resident in 2007. He was arrested in 2012 and charged in New Jersey for allegedly selling $300,000 worth of knock-off shorts.
While Lau was awaiting trial, he left the U.S. but upon his return he was deemed an “applicant for admission” by the Department of Homeland Security which sought his removal from the United States.
The majority determined that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require border officers “to have clear and convincing evidence” of a disqualifying offense at the exact time of parole. Instead, they said the government can satisfy the evidentiary burden later during removal proceedings.
The Court accepted the government’s argument that requiring immediate proof at the border would be unworkable and that the statutory text (“has committed”) does not mandate a “conviction” or immediate proof before parole is granted.
The decision allows DHS to treat green card holders facing pending criminal charges as returning aliens awaiting inspection, and later removal proceedings, rather than readmitting them as residents.
The majority explained that removing a permanent resident on a charge of inadmissibility involves two steps:
At step one, only commission of the crime is required to show that the alien could be regarded as seeking to be admitted; at step two, conviction or admission is required to show that the alien seeking to be admitted is inadmissible.
Lau was correctly charged with inadmissibility. At step one, the Government regarded him as an alien seeking admission because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before attempting to reenter the country.
At step two, he was inadmissible and therefore removable because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The three liberal dissenting justices argued that this ruling strips lawful permanent residents of their status based on unproven accusations, effectively allowing the government to bypass the higher burden of proof required for deportation by using the “inadmissibility” track instead.
“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check. With today’s decision, the Court allows the Government to return an LPR (lawful permanent resident) to the status of ‘seeking an admission’ upon his entry at the border, so long as the Government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted,” wrote liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent.
“That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the relevant statutory scheme, which guarantees that LPRs will not be ‘regarded as seeking an admission’ at the border unless certain exceptions apply.”
James Percival, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, called the ruling a “big win” in a statement, Tuesday.
“Today, the Supreme Court affirmed an important tool DHS has long used to prevent criminals from entering our country. Big win!” Percival posted on X.