UMVA has learned that the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a landmark immigration ruling that significantly bolsters the Trump administration's efforts to enforce the law at the border.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court has ruled that federal immigration officials do not need "clear and convincing evidence" at the border to treat a lawful permanent resident accused of certain crimes as an applicant for admission. This pivotal decision gives border officers the authority to make swift judgments when dealing with individuals suspected of serious crimes.
At the heart of the case is Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who obtained a green card in 2007. When Lau faced criminal charges in New Jersey for selling nearly $300,000 worth of counterfeit clothing, a clear crime involving moral turpitude, he took a trip to China. Upon his return to the U.S. through JFK Airport in 2012, immigration officers paroled him into the country instead of formally admitting him as a returning resident due to the pending charges.
This parole decision proved critical, as it allowed the Department of Homeland Security to later treat Lau as an applicant for admission rather than automatically allowing him back into the country as a green card holder. After Lau pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting and received probation, DHS moved to remove him on inadmissibility grounds.
The Supreme Court's ruling, penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, was crystal clear: "The Government correctly regarded Lau as an applicant for admission, so it properly charged him with inadmissibility. Nothing in the [Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)] 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."
This decision is being hailed as a massive win for law and order, as it affirms that border officers can make reasonable, on-the-spot decisions based on pending charges when deciding whether to parole a returning green card holder. The full evidence of the crime can — and should — be presented later during removal proceedings, where it belongs.
The ruling also signals a significant shift in the balance between protecting the rights of individuals and upholding the rule of law. By siding with the Trump administration, the Court has rejected activist attempts to tie the hands of border officers and has made it significantly easier to remove lawful permanent residents who commit serious crimes.
The three liberal justices dissented, predictably expressing concerns about "immigration limbo" and seeking to protect criminal aliens over American citizens and the rule of law. However, the majority's decision ensures that border officers can continue to make quick judgments on the spot, without being bogged down by unnecessary technicalities.
