US Supreme Court Says Border Officers Do Not Need Strong Proof Before Questioning Returning Green Card Holders’ Re-entry Status

The US Supreme Court has ruled that immigration officers do not need clear and convincing proof that a green card holder committed a serious crime before treating them as someone seeking admission to the United States upon returning from a trip

abroad.

In a 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, the Court overturned a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and sent the case back for further review. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to possess a high level of evidence before making initial decisions at ports of entry.

The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and lawful permanent resident since 2007. After being charged with trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey in 2012, Lau travelled briefly to China and later returned to the United States. Immigration officials treated him as an applicant for admission rather than as a returning resident. Following his guilty plea in 2013, removal proceedings were initiated against him.

The Supreme Court held that immigration officers can initially rely on information suggesting that a person may have committed a disqualifying offence without first proving it through clear and convincing evidence. The Court noted that officers often need to make quick decisions at border checkpoints.

However, the Court did not decide whether Lau’s offence qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude, leaving that issue for the Second Circuit to determine.

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the ruling gives immigration authorities broader discretion and may weaken protections available to lawful permanent residents returning to the country.