US Supreme Court eases deportation of green card holders accused of crimes

In a 6-3 ruling on Tuesday, the US Supreme Court expanded the authority of federal border officials to deny entry and initiate the removal of lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, suspected of committing crimes involving "moral turpitude". Writing for the majority in Blanche v. Lau, Justice Clarence Thomas said authorities need only show there was reason to believe an immigrant seeking re-entry had committed such an offence, rather than prove it by "clear and convincing evidence". "The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.

The ruling means that border authorities can deny admission and begin removal proceedings against lawful permanent residents suspected of involvement in crimes categorised as involving "moral turpitude". Case centred on green card holder from China According to ABC News, the ruling represents 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 while facing charges in New Jersey linked to trademark counterfeiting.

He was permitted to re-enter the country conditionally. US immigration law generally allows green card holders returning from short trips abroad to re-enter the country.

However, exceptions apply if an individual has been convicted of, or admits to, committing a "crime involving moral turpitude", ABC News reported. Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was subsequently ordered deported. He continued to challenge the proceedings, arguing that the offence did not constitute a crime involving "moral turpitude". Dissent warns of wider government powers In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the government should first establish that a green card holder committed a disqualifying offence before revoking their status.

"I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," Jackson wrote. She further noted: "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."