Supreme Court weighs resident admissibility standards

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in “Blanche v. Lau,” with justices skeptical of changing admissibility standards for green card holders accused of committing a crime allowing for their removal.

Supreme Court justices weighed how a ruling for both the petitioner and the respondent would affect lawful permanent residents, balancing the standards for green card holders who may have committed a crime with their rights.

The case revolves around Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who was charged with trademark counterfeiting and soon after left the country. Upon his return to the U.S., immigration officers “paroled” him back into the U.S. instead of “admitting” him, a move that makes it easier for him to be removed and sets up the decision now before justices.

The case came down to two questions: what evidence is needed for a border officer to be sure a permanent resident committed a crime allowing for their removal, and where does the burden of proof lie — with that officer or later, with an immigration judge?

“I don’t understand why the border officer suddenly has so much power to deprive a person who has a green card based on a suspicion or even an indictment when the statute seems to require conviction,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

Justices were critical of both arguments made by attorneys for the Department of Justice and Lau. Some appeared to agree that without a conviction, there wasn’t enough evidence in that moment to change how Lau was allowed entry.

“You didn’t have proof at the moment he presented himself that he had committed a crime of moral turpitude, right? You had just a charge,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Others sided with the government, which argued requiring that much proof would take witnesses, a detention and an immigration judge — not really feasible at the border and possibly more dangerous for residents.

“What do you do, do you detain the LPRs and you set up some sort of adjudicatory proceeding?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

The concern from Lau’s attorney was a ruling for Blanche could expand the government’s authority to parole individuals based on little evidence. The counter argument raised was loosening standards could allow residents in who shouldn’t be readmitted.

A decision is expected later this summer.