WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Blanche v. Lau that federal immigration law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.

Cully Stimson, acting director for The Heritage Foundation’s Institute of Constitutional Government, made the following statement:

“By reversing the Second Circuit for resisting a straightforward two-step analysis in order to remove a lawful permanent resident on a charge of inadmissibility and remanding the case to determine whether Muk Choi Lau’s conviction for trademark-counterfeiting was a crime of moral turpitude, the Court has taken another step forward in interpreting our immigration laws as written.”

Lora Ries, director of Heritage’s Border Security and Immigration Center, also noted the following:

“The Supreme Court 6-3 majority issued a short, straightforward decision because the analysis of the immigration statute is straightforward. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require Customs and Border Protection agents to have clear and convincing evidence that an alien seeking to enter the U.S. has committed a crime involving moral turpitude. Nor would such a requirement be practical, as port agents have very limited time to inspect plane loads of passengers at a time.

“Lau benefited from the border agent paroling him into the country in lieu of denying admission outright or detaining him while his criminal case proceeded. Nonetheless, Lau demanded even more—full admission into the U.S., despite his crime and contrary to the INA. He overreached, and the Supreme Court rightly steered his case back to the law.”