US Supreme Court eases deportation process for green card holders accused of certain crimes

The United States Supreme Court has made it easier for border authorities to deport lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, accused of crimes involving "moral turpitude." In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that immigration officials do not need to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that a returning green card holder committed a disqualifying offense before denying admission. Instead, authorities only need to establish that there is "reason to believe" such an offense may have been committed.

“

The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement.

The ruling strengthens the powers of border agents to deny entry and initiate removal proceedings against lawful permanent residents arriving at US ports of entry if they are suspected of involvement in crimes involving "moral turpitude." The decision marks a setback for petitioner Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and US green card holder. Lau was deemed inadmissible at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 after returning from China, facing charges related to trademark counterfeiting. He was conditionally allowed re-entry at the time.

US immigration law generally permits green card holders who travel abroad for short periods to re-enter the country, but exceptions exist if the individual is convicted of, or admits to, committing a "crime involving moral turpitude." Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was subsequently ordered deported. He challenged the removal proceedings, arguing the offense did not qualify as one involving "moral turpitude."

“

I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check.

In a dissenting note, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued that the government should bear the burden of proving a green card holder committed a disqualifying offense before revoking their status. Jackson expressed concern that the court handed the government a "massive blank check," allowing the government to return a lawful permanent resident to the status of "seeking admission" at the border, only to later prove a conviction. She stated this sequencing undermines the law's plain terms and basic operation.

“

With today's decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of 'seeking admission' upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the law.