The U.S. Supreme Court has made it easier for federal border agents to remove lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, who may have committed crimes involving moral turpitude. In a 6-3 decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court determined that border agents do not need to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that an immigrant seeking to re-enter the country after a trip abroad had committed such a crime.
Instead, agents only need to show that there is reason to believe the individual committed a crime involving moral turpitude to deny them admission. "The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," Thomas wrote in the majority opinion in Blanche v. Lau.
The ruling effectively enhances the authority of border officials to strip lawful permanent resident status from individuals at U.S. ports of entry. This decision impacts the case of Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and U.S. green card holder. Lau was deemed inadmissible at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 upon returning from China, facing New Jersey state charges for trademark counterfeiting at the time, though he was conditionally allowed readmission.
U.S. immigration law generally allows green card holders who have legally departed and are returning to the U.S. for short periods to re-enter. However, exceptions exist, including for those convicted of or admitting to committing a crime involving moral turpitude. A year after his initial encounter at the airport, Lau pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was subsequently ordered deported, a decision he continued to contest.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Jackson argued that the government should bear the burden of proving that a green card holder had actually committed a crime before stripping their status. "I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," Jackson wrote. "With today's the decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of 'seeking admission' upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation" of the law.