Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump Administration on Immigration Policy
The Supreme Court made a significant decision on Tuesday, siding with the Trump administration. This ruling permits immigration officials to deny entry to green card holders—officially known as lawful permanent residents (LPRs)—under certain conditions.
The court’s ruling, noted as Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Mr. Lau, was decided with a 6-3 majority. It gives border authorities the discretion to refuse entry to LPRs who are suspected of having committed crimes, which can ultimately keep them in the U.S. indefinitely. Simultaneously, it allows officials to grant parole to such individuals.
Typically, LPRs returning from short trips abroad are considered to be already authorized to enter the country upon their return, per the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This provision helps green card holders skip the extensive checks that new immigrants face.
Yet, the law does present exceptions, particularly when officials believe an LPR is involved in a “crime involving moral turpitude.” In the opinion penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court clarified that border agents are not required to show “clear and convincing evidence” of such a crime before they can deny entry.
The case originated when Muk Choy Lau, a Chinese green card holder, contested a 2012 immigration judge’s decision regarding his parole after a brief trip. Lau faced charges of trademark forgery in New Jersey, but he traveled to China prior to his trial. Upon returning, he was released on parole. He argued that he should have been recognized as an LPR who was “already admitted,” rather than an applicant for re-entry, which would have made the government’s attempt to deport him more complicated.
Officials from the Trump administration maintained that the alleged crime provided adequate grounds to parole Lau and similarly affected LPRs.
The ruling in Blanche v. Lau overturned a previous Second Circuit decision that necessitated “clear and convincing evidence” of criminal activity for entry denial. Instead, it determined Lau was “properly charged with inadmissibility.” The majority opinion explained that the government classified him as an alien seeking admission due to the crime before his re-entry attempt, thus rendering him inadmissible.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown, alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued that this decision allows the government to initially categorize LPRs as “permit-seeking,” enabling them to impose exceptions that could compromise the integrity of the statutory framework and the security that comes with holding a green card.
