Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Blanche v. Lau
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Blanche v. Lau
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-429_h3ci.pdf
Case background
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Government can remove
aliens applying for admission to the country if they are “inadmissible,” and
it can remove aliens already admitted if they are “deportable.” Respondent
Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen, was admitted to the United States as a
lawful permanent resident in 2007. On May 7, 2012, New Jersey charged Lau
with trademark counterfeiting, and while awaiting trial he temporarily left
the United States for China. Lawful permanent residents generally must be
regarded as already admitted and need not reapply for admission when they
return from temporary travel, but under an exception the Government may regard
such a resident as “seeking an admission” if he “has committed an offense
identified in section 1182(a)(2),” including a crime involving moral
turpitude. Because of Lau’s pending charge, when he tried to reenter on
June 15, 2012, the border officer declined to treat him as already admitted
and instead paroled him into the country pending his criminal case. After Lau
pleaded guilty in 2013, the Government charged him as an applicant for
admission who was inadmissible for having been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude. The Immigration Judge found him removable and the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirmed, but the Second Circuit vacated the removal
order, holding that Lau should have been regarded as already admitted unless
the border officer had “clear and convincing” evidence that he had committed
the crime. Because that decision conflicted with rulings of the Fifth and
Ninth Circuits, the Court granted certiorari.
Questions Presented
(1) Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the LPR’s last reentry into the United States.
Holding
The Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have
clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a
crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for
admission. Removing a lawful permanent resident on a charge of inadmissibility
involves two steps: at step one, only commission of the crime is required to
regard the alien as seeking admission; at step two, a conviction or admission
is required to show that the alien is inadmissible. Lau was correctly charged,
because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before reentry and
was later convicted of it. Nothing in the statute imposes a clear-and-
convincing-evidence burden on the Government at the border; the Board of
Immigration Appeals imposes that burden only at the removal hearing, where the
Government satisfied it through Lau’s guilty plea. The Court does not decide
whether Lau’s crime was one involving moral turpitude and remands for further
proceedings.
The Court
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice
Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan
joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Blanche v. Lau, written by Justice Thomas.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Thomas. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-429_h3ci.pdf
Case background
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Government can remove
aliens applying for admission to the country if they are “inadmissible,” and
it can remove aliens already admitted if they are “deportable.” Respondent
Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen, was admitted to the United States as a
lawful permanent resident in 2007. On May 7, 2012, New Jersey charged Lau
with trademark counterfeiting, and while awaiting trial he temporarily left
the United States for China. Lawful permanent residents generally must be
regarded as already admitted and need not reapply for admission when they
return from temporary travel, but under an exception the Government may regard
such a resident as “seeking an admission” if he “has committed an offense
identified in section 1182(a)(2),” including a crime involving moral
turpitude. Because of Lau’s pending charge, when he tried to reenter on
June 15, 2012, the border officer declined to treat him as already admitted
and instead paroled him into the country pending his criminal case. After Lau
pleaded guilty in 2013, the Government charged him as an applicant for
admission who was inadmissible for having been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude. The Immigration Judge found him removable and the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirmed, but the Second Circuit vacated the removal
order, holding that Lau should have been regarded as already admitted unless
the border officer had “clear and convincing” evidence that he had committed
the crime. Because that decision conflicted with rulings of the Fifth and
Ninth Circuits, the Court granted certiorari.
Questions Presented
(1) Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the LPR’s last reentry into the United States.
Holding
The Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have
clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a
crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for
admission. Removing a lawful permanent resident on a charge of inadmissibility
involves two steps: at step one, only commission of the crime is required to
regard the alien as seeking admission; at step two, a conviction or admission
is required to show that the alien is inadmissible. Lau was correctly charged,
because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before reentry and
was later convicted of it. Nothing in the statute imposes a clear-and-
convincing-evidence burden on the Government at the border; the Board of
Immigration Appeals imposes that burden only at the removal hearing, where the
Government satisfied it through Lau’s guilty plea. The Court does not decide
whether Lau’s crime was one involving moral turpitude and remands for further
proceedings.
The Court
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice
Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan
joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Blanche v. Lau, written by Justice Thomas.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Thomas. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.