US Supreme Court eases burden on border agents in Blanche v Lau ruling
Green card holders face lower proof standard at US ports of entry
Ruling expands immigration enforcement over moral turpitude allegations in reentry cases
US Supreme Court Lowers Bar to Deport Green Card Holders Over Crime Allegations
In a 6–3 ruling, Court ruled that border agents are not required to prove “clear and convincing evidence” on the allegations against green card holders
Summary
The US Supreme Court expanded the authority of federal border officials to deny entry and potentially remove lawful permanent residents (green card holders) suspected of certain crimes, including those involving “moral turpitude.”
In a 6–3 ruling authored by Justice Clarence Thomas in the case Blanche v. Lau, the Court ruled that border agents are not required to prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that a returning green card holder committed a disqualifying crime.
The top court ruled that officials only need to show there is a “reason to believe” the individual may have committed such an offense.
Justice Thomas stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose a higher evidentiary standard on immigration authorities in these cases.
Impact on Green Card Holders
The ruling makes it easier for immigration officers to deny re-entry to lawful permanent residents arriving at U.S. airports or borders.
It particularly affects cases involving allegations of “crimes involving moral turpitude,” a broad legal category that can include fraud, theft, and other offenses.
The decision effectively strengthens the government’s ability to question and detain returning residents pending further legal review.
Chinese Permanent Resident at Center of Immigration Dispute
According to ABC News, the case centers on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and US green card holder who was stopped at JFK Airport in 2012 while returning from China.
He was flagged due to pending New Jersey charges for trademark counterfeiting and was initially denied formal admission, though he was temporarily allowed entry.
Lau later pleaded guilty and was ordered deported, but continued challenging his removal, arguing the offense did not qualify as “moral turpitude,” ABC News reported.
Advertisement
Justices Cautions Against Government Overreach
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, strongly dissented from the majority opinion.
The dissent warned that the ruling effectively allows the government to downgrade lawful permanent residents to “seeking admission” status without first proving wrongdoing.
Jackson argued this creates a “blank check” for immigration authorities and undermines statutory protections intended under immigration law.
Published At: