The question
Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an applicant for admission.
Blanche v. Lau
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the Second Circuit and held that the INA does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission. Charging a lawful permanent resident with inadmissibility involves two steps. At step one, only commission of the crime is required to regard the alien as seeking admission. At step two, conviction or admission of the crime is required to establish inadmissibility. Because Lau had committed and then was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, he was correctly charged with inadmissibility.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Removing a lawful permanent resident on a charge of inadmissibility involves two steps. At step one, only commission of a crime involving moral turpitude is required to regard the alien as seeking admission. At step two, conviction or admission of the crime is required to establish that the alien is inadmissible. The statute imposes clear and convincing evidence burdens in other situations, but nothing in the INA imposes that burden on the Government to establish that the alien is an applicant for admission. Lau was correctly charged because he committed the crime before reentry and was later convicted of it.
Dissenting
Jackson, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan
The dissenting justices would not read the INA to allow a lawful permanent resident to be treated as an applicant for admission on the basis of a crime that has only been charged and not proven at the time of reentry.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The INA does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.
Source: syllabus, Held
Charging a lawful permanent resident with inadmissibility involves two steps: at step one only commission of the crime is required, and at step two conviction or admission is required to show inadmissibility.
Source: syllabus, Held
Lau was correctly charged with inadmissibility because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before reentry and had been convicted of that crime.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Second Circuit had concluded the Government bore the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lau actually committed the crime at the time of reentry.
Source: syllabus, Held
Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett; Jackson filed a dissent joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
Source: syllabus, lineup