The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on April 22 in Blanche v. Lau, a case centered on whether immigration authorities can deport a Chinese green card holder convicted of counterfeiting. The court is reviewing whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) correctly classified Muk Choi Lau as inadmissible based on a pending criminal charge when he re-entered the U.S. in 2012.
Lau, a lawful permanent resident since 2005, was charged with trademark counterfeiting in 2012 and briefly left the country. Upon his return, he was paroled into the U.S. to face trial, convicted in 2013, and later faced removal proceedings in 2014. A federal appeals court later overturned his removal order, ruling he could not be deported due to his legal admission when paroled.
The Supreme Court is now deciding whether immigration officers must present clear and convincing evidence of a crime at the border or if they can introduce that evidence later in removal proceedings. Lau’s lawyer argued that officers should require proof of a conviction or admission of guilt to deny entry, but multiple justices expressed skepticism over the high bar this would set for border adjudications.
The case hinges on the legal distinction between being paroled into the country—where an individual is not formally admitted—and subsequent removal proceedings. The Trump administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that the appeals court’s ruling defied common practice by requiring evidence at the border rather than during later proceedings.
The outcome could impact how immigration officers handle criminal charges against legal permanent residents at ports of entry and the broader interpretation of inadmissibility laws.