The Supreme Court held Tuesday that immigration law doesn’t require the government to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime before deeming him an applicant for admission.
The case involved removal proceedings against an immigrant legally residing in the United States who was charged with selling counterfeit products. It had the potential to affect the operations of Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and immigration courts.
In a 6-3 ruling, the majority—with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the court—reversed the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held the Immigration and Nationality Act requires border officers to have compelling evidence that a lawful immigrant committed a crime of “moral turpitude” before blocking readmission to the United States.
The plaintiff, Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national residing in the U.S. with a green card, was charged with counterfeiting before leaving the country and was convicted after returning and being placed on parole. The Immigration and Nationality Act says that green card holders who leave the country and re-enter are generally not regarded as seeking admission to the United States. However, an exception exists for a “crime involving moral turpitude,” which would include fraud or theft.
“The Government correctly regarded Lau as an applicant for admission, so it properly charged him with inadmissibility. Nothing in the INA required the border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” Thomas wrote for the majority.
Lau, a lawful permanent resident in the United States, was charged in May 2012 on New Jersey state charges for selling almost $300,000 worth of knockoff Coogi shorts, according to SCOTUSblog.
Before his trial, he left the country but returned on June 12, when immigration officers at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York stopped him.
Immigration officers determined that Lau was subject to the “moral turpitude” exception and paroled him. That allowed him to stay in the U.S. temporarily to face prosecution, but deferred his eligibility for admission.
A year later, he pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting and was sentenced to two years’ probation. In March 2014—during the Obama administration—the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Lau on the grounds that he wasn’t eligible for admission.
Lau challenged immigration officials’ decision to parole him rather than admit him into the country in June 2012, contending that he was improperly classified.
The case is Blanche v. Lau, renamed for acting Attorney General Todd Blanche after initially being named Bondi v. Lau for former Attorney General Pam Bondi.
“The Supreme Court 6-3 majority issued a short, straightforward decision because the analysis of the immigration statute is straightforward,” Lora Ries, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, said in a public statement. “The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require Customs and Border Protection agents to have clear and convincing evidence that an alien seeking to enter the U.S. has committed a crime involving moral turpitude. Nor would such a requirement be practical, as port agents have very limited time to inspect plane loads of passengers at a time.”
Ries added: “Lau benefited from the border agent paroling him into the country in lieu of denying admission outright or detaining him while his criminal case proceeded. Nonetheless, Lau demanded even more—full admission into the U.S., despite his crime and contrary to the INA. He overreached, and the Supreme Court rightly steered his case back to the law.”
[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]
