The Supreme Court is poised to hear oral arguments in Blanche v. Lau, a case that could have significant implications for lawful permanent residents in the United States facing criminal charges. The case centers on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and green card holder, who was charged under New Jersey law for allegedly selling counterfeit goods. During his return to the United States in 2012, Lau was detained by immigration officers who categorized him as “inadmissible” due to pending charges, although he was later allowed in temporarily for prosecution.
Under normal circumstances, lawful permanent residents are not considered to be seeking admission upon reentry into the country; however, exceptions exist for those who have committed a “crime involving moral turpitude.” Immigration officers invoked this exception against Lau, paroling him instead of granting admission, based on his pending counterfeiting charges. Lau eventually pleaded guilty, and following his conviction, efforts to remove him from the U.S. commenced.
The key legal question in this case is whether immigration officers must have “clear and convincing” evidence of a crime at the time of reentry to invoke the moral turpitude exception, or if such evidence can be produced during later removal proceedings. Previously, the Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of Lau, arguing that the evidence must be available at the time of reentry, which contrasts with other federal court rulings that would consider a conviction sufficient to meet evidentiary standards.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that immigration officers should not be required to conduct thorough evidentiary investigations at the border, as it would obstruct their ability to process the daily inflow of individuals. To him, the later production of evidence should be permissible during removal hearings, a stance the Supreme Court agreed to review. Alternatively, Lau’s counsel argues that past practices demonstrate that immigration officers are capable of making these determinations effectively at the border.
This case promises to clarify the procedural rights of lawful permanent residents facing criminal allegations and could either streamline federal processes or emphasize stronger due process for these individuals, reflecting broader implications on the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A decision is expected by early July.