The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal border officials can classify lawful permanent residents facing certain criminal allegations as applicants for admission upon return from travel abroad, even without a conviction. The 6-3 decision split along ideological lines and sided with the Trump administration in Blanche v. Lau.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to have clear and convincing evidence before making such determinations. "Nothing in the INA required the border officer to have clear and convincing evidence," Thomas stated.
The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen who became a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2012, while facing trademark counterfeiting charges in New Jersey, Lau traveled to China and attempted to reenter through John F. Kennedy International Airport. Officials classified him as an applicant for admission and paroled him into the country.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. "I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check," Jackson wrote. The Court left unresolved whether Lau’s conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude.
