The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump’s administration a significant 6-3 win in its aggressive push to secure America’s borders and protect American citizens from criminal illegal immigrants and removable aliens.
The decision in Blanche v. Lau reaffirms the federal government’s longstanding authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to treat certain criminal lawful permanent residents (LPRs) as “applicants for admission” upon reentry, making it far easier to remove them from the country.
Advertisement
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
The conservative justices rejected the activist lower court’s attempt to impose burdensome evidentiary requirements on border officers.
In dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — the usual suspects prioritizing foreign criminals over American safety.
Advertisement
The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident since 2007 who faced charges for third-degree trademark counterfeiting — a crime involving moral turpitude — in New Jersey.
While abroad in China, Lau attempted to return through JFK Airport in New York.
Advertisement
Border officials, spotting the pending criminal charge via FBI database, wisely paroled him into the U.S. rather than granting full admission.
After Lau later pleaded guilty and received probation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings, treating him as an arriving alien subject to stricter inadmissibility rules.
The Second Circuit had sided with Lau, imposing a novel “clear and convincing evidence” standard that border officers must meet at the exact moment of reentry before classifying such individuals as seeking admission.
This bureaucratic nightmare would have forced overwhelmed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to essentially hold mini-trials at ports of entry, complete with witnesses and full proof, before acting on known criminal threats.
The Supreme Court vacated that decision, holding that the INA does not require such impossible proof upfront.
Officers can rely on reliable indicators like indictments or database hits, with fuller evidence developed later in removal proceedings.
This ruling is a direct boost to President Trump’s America First immigration agenda.
From Day One of his second term, Trump has promised to end the catch-and-release policies and activist judicial interference that plagued prior administrations.
“We’re going to have the strongest border in the history of the world,” Trump has repeatedly declared, vowing to deport criminal aliens “fast” and restore sovereignty.
Trump’s DHS has already ramped up enforcement, targeting public safety threats who exploit legal loopholes.
DHS celebrated the decision in a statement: “The Supreme Court affirmed an important tool DHS has long used to prevent criminals from entering our country.”
With millions of lawful permanent residents — and untold numbers of illegals attempting to game the system — this decision equips border agents and immigration judges with the flexibility needed to act decisively.
By clarifying that re-entry isn’t a get-out-of-deportation-free card, the Court has dismantled a key obstacle in Trump’s mass deportation priorities.
This tool will help prioritize removing gang members, drug traffickers, and other threats clogging our communities, courts, and welfare systems.
Requiring “clear and convincing” proof on the spot would paralyze operations at busy airports and land crossings, endangering officers and inviting more fraud.
Legal experts note this ruling could affect thousands of cases annually, streamlining removals for those who commit disqualifying offenses. It reinforces that borders mean something.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the decision and voiced concerns for immigrants in the dissent.
“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check,” she wrote in a dissent joined by her two liberal colleagues.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
