Justice Clarence Thomas led a majority on the Supreme Court on Tuesday in allowing federal immigration officials to deny green-card holders who have committed serious crimes the ability to reenter the United States, one of several key immigration rulings set to be handed down by the high court this week.
The ruling in Blanche v. Lau involves what standard is necessary for determining if a legal permanent resident who has committed a crime should be denied admission into the country and therefore subject to removal proceedings. Thomas, who turned 78 on Tuesday, wrote the 6-3 majority opinion, ruling that the Department of Homeland Security does not need “clear and convincing evidence” to determine if a green-card holder should be considered an “applicant for admission” because he or she committed a crime “involving moral turpitude.” The ruling will make it easier for immigration officials to deny entry and remove criminal immigrants.
“The Government correctly regarded Lau as an applicant for admission, so it properly charged him with inadmissibility. Nothing in the [Immigration and Nationality Act] required the border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming him an applicant for admission,” Thomas wrote.
The case centers on Muk Choi Lau, who became a lawful permanent resident in 2005 but was eventually charged with trademark counterfeiting in 2012 and briefly left the country. When Lau returned later that year, he was paroled into the country by immigration officers to face trial — meaning he was not legally admitted despite being released by immigration officers, who could still inspect him for admission at a later date. Lau was convicted of the crime in 2013, and immigration officials began removal proceedings against him in 2014, citing the conviction as the reason why he could not be legally admitted into the country.
The ruling by the high court on Tuesday remanded the case to the 2nd Circuit to determine if Lau’s crime is one “involving moral turpitude.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, arguing federal immigration officials should have to make a determination, with evidence, about whether a criminal legal immigrant may be admitted back into the country at the time of entry, and cannot punt the determination by paroling the immigrant into the country in the meantime.
“Today the Court allows the Government to deem an LPR to be ‘seeking an admission’ first and justify the applicability of an exception later — undermining the statutory scheme as well as the benefits and security that come with having a green card. I respectfully dissent because the governing law’s text, structure, and context show that the majority’s view cannot possibly be what Congress intended,” Jackson wrote.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, called the ruling “important” for immigration officials to hold criminal immigrants accountable, while also expressing disappointment at the dissent from the three left-leaning justices, who want to “make it virtually impossible to prevent such criminals from reentering the country.”
“This was an important case in the fight to remove aliens who abuse the privilege of being granted lawful permanent residence status by then committing crimes in our country,” Spakovsky said.
The Lau case was one of four outstanding immigration-related cases that the Supreme Court heard earlier this term but had yet to issue a ruling in. With the Lau decision, the high court still has to release opinions in disputes over blocking asylum-seekers from ports of entry, ending temporary protected status for Haiti and Syria, and President Donald Trump’s executive order to narrow birthright citizenship.
THE MAJOR SUPREME COURT DECISIONS REMAINING FOR THIS TERM
The Supreme Court has 12 remaining opinions to issue this term, with nearly all of the pending cases focused on high-profile issues. Some of the other most closely watched cases awaiting a ruling include legal challenges to Trump’s firing powers, a pair of state laws barring biological men from women’s sports, and laws allowing late-arriving mail ballots to be counted.
The high court is next scheduled to issue rulings on Thursday, but could also issue opinions on additional days either this week or early next week. Once the Supreme Court concludes issuing rulings for this term, it will return in October for a new term with a new slate of cases.