SCOTUS: Gov’t Can Parole ‘Criminal’ Green Card Holders
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the authority of border officials to parole green card holders who have committed crimes involving moral turpitude. The case, Blanche v. Lau, originated in 2012 when Muk Choi lau, a lawful permanent resident from China, was charged wiht trademark counterfeiting. lau was granted parole upon reentry into the U.S., allowing him to enter physically without formal admission, which he challenged after his subsequent conviction.
Justice Clarence Thomas explained that the government had the right to treat Lau as inadmissible due to his prior crime, stating that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) did not require clear evidence of a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming someone an applicant for admission. The Court concluded the government could lawfully charge Lau with inadmissibility and parole him, remanding the case to consider whether his crime truly involved moral turpitude.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Jackson arguing that the majority’s interpretation disregards Congress’s intent and the special status of lawful permanent residents, almost akin to citizenship, which should be protected under law. The decision emphasizes the government’s statutory right to parole individuals like Lau while raising questions about the limits of this authority under immigration law.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld border officials’ ability to parole green card holders who have “committed a crime involving moral turpitude” on Tuesday.
The matter at issue in Blanche v. Lau dates back to 2012 when Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident (LPR) in the United States, was charged with trademark counterfeiting. Lau was placed on parole upon reentry into the United States, a decision he challenged as unlawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) following his 2013 conviction. He essentially contended that officials weren’t permitted to parole him since he hadn’t been formally convicted at the time of reentry.
As Justice Clarence Thomas explained for the 6-3 majority, Lau was paroled “pending the resolution of his criminal case, meaning that he was allowed to physically enter the country without being formally admitted.” It was following Lau’s decision to plead guilty that the government “initiated removal proceedings and secured a removal order based on his conviction.”
Thomas noted that “[n]othing in the 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.” Under the admissibility steps required by the INA, he added, “Lau was correctly charged with inadmissibility.”
“At step one, the Government properly regarded him as an alien seeking admission because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before attempting to reenter the country … So, at step two, he was inadmissible and therefore removable if he satisfied any statutory ground for inadmissibility, including that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,” Thomas wrote.
The court concluded that the government possessed the statutory right to charge Lau with inadmissibility and parole him. The justices remanded the case back to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for “further proceedings” in light of its decision and to weigh Lau’s arguments that his crime “was not one involving moral turpitude.”
[READ: SCOTUS Weighs Whether US Has To Readmit Green Card Holders Who ‘Committed’ Crimes]
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Writing on behalf of her fellow Democrat appointees, Jackson argued that “the governing law’s text, structure, and context show that the majority’s view cannot possibly be what Congress intended.”
“Having enshrined a returning LPR’s already-admitted status, Congress could not have meant for the guarantees it was affording to be so cavalierly swept aside. By law, LPRs are as close to citizenship as one can get absent naturalization,” Jackson wrote. “Today, the majority ignores that crucial fact and empowers Government officials to act accordingly.”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
