The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that border officials can deny admission to green card holders suspected of crimes — a decision that affirms the basic sovereign right of the United States to control who enters its territory, even when the open-borders lobby insists otherwise.
The 6-3 ruling in Blanche v. Lau overturns a Second Circuit decision that had required border officers to produce "clear and convincing evidence" of a crime before treating a returning legal permanent resident as an applicant seeking admission. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said no such high bar exists under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The INA already provides an exception for green card holders who have committed a "crime involving moral turpitude" — and the Court ruled that suspicion is enough to trigger it.
The case originated with Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and green card holder who was accused of trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey in 2012. Lau traveled to China before his trial and was placed on immigration parole upon his return. He later pleaded guilty. Lau argued that border officials overstepped by labeling him an applicant "seeking admission" rather than treating him as already admitted — a distinction that allowed the Department of Homeland Security to move faster on deportation. The Trump administration countered that suspicion of a crime is sufficient to put a lawful permanent resident on parole.
The Daily Caller detailed the legal mechanics: Thomas's majority concluded Lau had been "correctly charged with inadmissibility" because he committed a crime involving moral turpitude before attempting reentry. The New York Post and Mercury News, both running near-identical copy, framed the ruling as part of President Trump's "sweeping immigration crackdown" — burying the lede that this case started before Trump took office and that the legal question at stake is whether the government can enforce existing law at all.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Jackson argued the Court's decision "allows the Government to deem an LPR to be 'seeking an admission' first and justify the applicability of an exception later — undermining the statutory scheme as well as the benefits and security that come with having a green card," according to court documents cited by the Daily Caller.
The dissent's framing tells you everything about the open-borders mindset: the "benefits and security" of a green card are treated as entitlements that the American government cannot condition or revoke — even when the holder is suspected of counterfeiting. The Court majority disagreed. A green card is a privilege granted by the American people, not a deed to American soil.
The Post and Mercury News both noted the Court is also weighing cases on birthright citizenship, asylum restrictions, and temporary protected status — context that positions this ruling as one front in a broader fight. What they didn't say: that fight is about whether the United States has the authority to enforce its own immigration laws, or whether foreign nationals can claim constitutional protections to override them.
The question now is whether this administration — or any future one — will actually use the authority the Court just affirmed, or let it gather dust while cartels and fentanyl continue flowing through ports of entry.
