SCOTUS ruling gives border agents “blank check”

SCOTUS blank – In a 6-3 decision signed by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court held that border officers do not need “clear and convincing evidence” that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating the person as “seeking adm

On the day the Supreme Court delivered a decision in a case that had drawn less attention than the justices’ high-profile immigration disputes. the stakes for lawful permanent residents still landed hard—especially for anyone who has ever boarded a plane with a green card and the expectation that returning “home” means something.

In a 6-3 ruling signed by Justice Clarence Thomas. the Court said border officers do not have to meet a “clear and convincing evidence” standard that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before jeopardizing a person’s rights and ability to stay in the United States.

To the people who live under immigration rules, the difference isn’t academic. Moral turpitude is a vaguely defined term that can cover a wide spectrum of crimes generally involving intent to defraud or cause bodily harm. The Court’s holding effectively gives agents exceptional discretion to bypass protections typically afforded to green card holders—turning what should be a familiar process into something that can swing dramatically at the border.

The case was Blanche v. Lau.

Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese-born green card holder, was charged in New Jersey in 2012 with trademark counterfeiting. After he traveled abroad, he tried to re-enter the United States at an airport with his green card. Under federal law. returning lawful permanent residents are supposed to be treated as having already been admitted into the country—essentially coming back home.

But a border agent determined that because of Lau’s pending criminal charges for a crime involving moral turpitude, he fell into an exception. The agent classified him as someone “seeking admission” rather than already admitted.

Lau was paroled in, but his green card was confiscated. After he pleaded guilty, the federal government began removal proceedings against him.

An immigration judge found that Lau could be removed. When the case reached the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. the appeals panel disagreed and concluded the border office didn’t have enough evidence at that time to show that Lau had committed a crime. The Second Circuit also said Lau should have been treated under the default presumption that he had already been admitted due to his lawful permanent status.

“Critically,” Judge Richard J. Sullivan and the appeals panel ruled last year. “the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] does not provide that an LPR (Lawful Permanent Resident] may be treated as seeking admission when he has been ‘charged with a crime’ or is ‘believed to have committed a crime; it permits such a treatment only when an LPR ‘has committed’ a crime.”.

In Tuesday’s decision, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment. The majority argued the government was correct to reclassify Lau and that the federal statute did not actually require a border officer to “have clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude” before deeming him an applicant for admission.

To critics, the outcome doesn’t just change Lau’s case. It changes what lawful permanent residents may fear on the way back from overseas trips.

The ruling is likely to create a chilling effect on green card holders traveling abroad. It also comes on the heels of proposed rules by the Trump administration to force immigrants to pursue green card applications from abroad. and to make it considerably more expensive for green card holders to apply for U.S. citizenship.

In her dissent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the decision undermines the “benefits and security that come with having a green card.” She warned that in the worst-case scenario. the government could “merely assume” at the border that a green card holder should be demoted to “seeking admission. ” and then justify that determination with “post hoc evidence.”.

“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check.” Jackson wrote that green card holders are “as close to citizenship as one can get absent naturalization. ” and that the majority’s approach “ignores that crucial fact” while empowering government officials to act accordingly.

Immigration advocates and lawyers say the majority’s wording leaves room for serious consequences even if it does not mean border agents can instantly deport someone just because a green card holder is re-entering.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council said on social media that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not mean green card holders can simply be ordered deported by border agents. But classifying lawful permanent residents returning from abroad as “seeking admission. ” he said. could open up negative legal and practical consequences. including the possibility of detention and. eventually. deportation proceedings that require a higher burden of proof for defense.

“It is very disturbing in the breadth of its reach, and I think we can expect border officers to overuse the power that they’re given here,” Nancy Morawetz, a law professor and director of the Crimmigration Clinic at NYU, said.

Morawetz pointed to how the new discretion could ripple beyond moral turpitude. If the government doesn’t have to have any proof before treating someone as “seeking admission. ” she said. the risk could extend to other grounds of inadmissibility. including offenses involving controlled substances. “There are a lot of people who could be at real risk,” she said. “It’s very, very dangerous.”.

Allen Orr. former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. said the ruling lowers the due process standards green card holders are entitled to. “We’re giving a border officer the ability to determine if it’s a crime of moral turpitude and you might not even be guilty of it. ” Orr said.

He argued that if the facts are clear and a person is excludable. the system should still provide more process than what a border officer alone can apply at the port of entry. “If the facts are clear and the person is excludable and does not deserve to be in the United States. then take their green card but afford them a process greater than some border officer at the port of entry. ” he said.

Orr warned on Bluesky that the ruling creates an incentive to use the border as a place where rights are diminished. He said it also sends a troubling message to lawful permanent residents. “I already have clients who have green cards who are just afraid to travel. ” he said. because the government has signaled that a green card holder is treated “as a green card holder. you’re just now a long-term visitor. we could deny you for anything.”.

The decision, Orr concluded, “aligns with the goal of excluding and removing people from the United States that are not US-born nationals.”

For many green card holders. the Supreme Court has drawn a bright line between returning home and being treated as an applicant—one that could shift on the basis of allegations and “exception” classifications at the border. For the government. the ruling offers discretion without the need to meet the higher “clear and convincing evidence” requirement in these situations. For the people living with the consequences. it is the uncertainty that matters: whether the protections that came with lawful permanent status will follow them across a passport stamp—or disappear at the point where they land back in the country they call home.

SCOTUS Blanche v. Lau lawful permanent resident green card holders due process border agents moral turpitude Immigration and Nationality Act removal proceedings Ketanji Brown Jackson