The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump Administration Tuesday in a case concerning the federal government’s power over green card holders accused of crimes.
The case brought before the Court centered around a 2012 decision made by an immigration officer to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole after returning from China with allegations of counterfeiting.
According to Lau, the federal government overstepped its authority in doing so.
After later pleading guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey, the Obama Administration began deportation proceedings immediately against Lau, something that was only possible because he was on immigration parole.
The majority of justices, however, disagreed with Lau’s understanding of the federal government’s authority.
“Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.
“The Government correctly regarded Lau as an applicant for admission, so it properly charged him with inadmissibility,” the majority said. “Nothing in the INA required the border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming him an applicant for admission.”
Justices Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the ruling “handed the Government a massive blank check.”
The dissent, authored by Justice Jackson, suggested that by placing Lau on immigration parole, the federal government had effectively sentenced him to “immigration limbo” before he had been convicted of a crime.
In arguing this case, the Trump Administration asserted that suspicion of criminal activity is sufficient to place someone on immigration parole.
As a result of this ruling, Lau’s case was remanded to the Second Circuit where it will be decided if the crime for which Lau was accused constitutes “moral turpitude,” as this is not within the Supreme Court’s responsibilities.
Click Here to Read the Court’s Full Opinion
Still outstanding before the Court is a case regarding President Donald Trump’s (R) stance on birthright citizenship.
This past fall, the Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to uphold his Executive Order issued on Inauguration Day redefining birthright citizenship.
Trump’s Executive Order — titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship — was signed just hours after the inauguration and states that “the privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.”
[RELATED: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Birthright Citizenship Case With President Trump in Attendance]
Currently, the United States grants full citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of whether their parents are in the country legally or illegally.
Incorporated into the Constitution in the wake of the Civil War, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure that all formerly enslaved people would be granted citizenship.
Setting up the modern interpretation of this clause was the Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark wherein the citizenship status of Wong Kim Ark — who was born in San Francisco to parents who were Chinese citizens “living and working” and “permanently domiciled” in America — was called into question.
Under the Naturalization Act of 1802, Ark’s parents were ineligible to become naturalized citizens, as Congress continued to limit eligibility for naturalization to “free white persons
.”
The 6-2 majority opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case, authored by Justice Horace Gray, declared that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, Ark was a United States citizen.
Trump’s Executive Order establishes that “it is the policy of the United States” that citizenship shall not be granted to those whose “mother was unlawfully present in the United States and [whose] father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
Birthright citizenship would also not be extended to those whose “mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and [whose] father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
This clause of the Executive Order would likely impact the ability of children born to those with pending asylum claims, as well as those who are in the United States on temporary work, student, or tourist visas, to obtain birthright citizenship.
Every judge who has reviewed the provision to date has found it to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Trump Administration is hoping that the Supreme Court will come to a different conclusion upon review.
A decision can be expected in this case at some point in the coming weeks.
