SCOTUS gave the government a “blank check” to weaken due process for green card holders
Mother Jones illustration; Tim Mossholder/Unsplash; Paul J. RIchards/AFP/Getty
Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.This Supreme Court term has no shortage of high-profile immigration-related cases. But as the justices wait until the last minute to rule on the more controversial ones—namely birthright citizenship—on Tuesday, they delivered a decision in a sleeper case that could have implications for millions of green card holders living in the United States.
In a 6-3 decision signed by Justice Clarence Thomas, the conservative supermajority held that border officers don’t need to have “clear and convincing evidence” that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude—a vaguely defined immigration law term that can cover a wide spectrum of crimes generally involving intent to defraud or cause bodily harm—before jeopardizing their rights and ability to stay in the country. In other words, agents at the border have just been given exceptional discretion to bypass protections generally afforded to green card holders.
In the case at issue, Blanche v. Lau, Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese-born green card holder was charged in New Jersey in 2012 with trademark counterfeiting. Lau then traveled abroad and tried to re-enter the United States at the airport with his green card. Under federal statute, returning lawful permanent residents are supposed to be treated as having already been admitted into the country—meaning they are essentially just coming back home.
But a border agent determined that, because of Lau’s pending criminal charges for a crime involving moral turpitude, he fit into an exception and could be classified as someone “seeking admission” (rather than already admitted) into the United States. Lau was paroled in, but had his green card confiscated. After he pleaded guilty to the charges, the federal government started removal proceedings against him.
An immigration judge found that Lau could be removed, but following an appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The appeals court concluded that the border office didn’t have enough evidence at that time to show that Lau had committed a crime and that he should have been treated under the default presumption that he had already been admitted into the United States due to his lawful permanent status.
“Critically,” Judge Richard J. Sullivan and the appeals panel ruled last year, “the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] does not provide that an LPR (Lawful Permanent Resident] may be treated as seeking admission when he has been ‘charged with a crime’ or is ‘believed to have committed a crime; it permits such a treatment only when an LPR ‘has committed’ a crime.”
In Tuesday’s decision, the Supreme Court majority led by Justice Thomas vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment, arguing that the government had correctly reclassified Lau and that the federal statute didn’t actually require 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.”
The ruling in Blanche v. Lau is likely to create a chilling effect on lawful permanent residents traveling overseas. Notably, it follows proposed rules by the Trump administration to force immigrants to pursue green card applications from abroad, and make it considerably more expensive for green card holders to apply for US citizenship.
In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Court’s decision undermined the “benefits and security that come with having a green card.” In the worst-case scenario, Justice Jackson reasoned, the government could “merely assume” at the border that a green card holder should be demoted to “seeking admission” and only justify that determination with “post hoc evidence.”
“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check.”
“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check,” Justice Jackson wrote. Green card holders, she added, “are as close to citizenship as one can get absent naturalization…Today, the majority ignores that crucial fact and empowers Government officials to act accordingly.”
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick with the American immigration Council noted on social media that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not mean that green card holders can simply be ordered deported by border agents. But classifying lawful permanent residents returning from abroad as “seeking admission” could open up a wide range of negative legal and practical consequences for them, including the possibility of detention and, eventually, deportation proceedings requiring a higher burden of proof for defense.
“It is very disturbing in the breadth of its reach, and I think we can expect border officers to overuse the power that they’re given here,” said Nancy Morawetz, a law professor and director of the Crimmigration Clinic at NYU. She worries about the implications for green card holders who could be subject to other grounds of inadmissibility, such as offenses involving controlled substances. “There are a lot of people who could be at real risk if the government doesn’t really have to have any proof…It’s very, very dangerous.”
Allen Orr, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the ruling lowers the due process standards green card holders are entitled to. “We’re giving a border officer the ability to determine if it’s a crime of moral turpitude and you might not even be guilty of it,” he said. “If the facts are clear and the person is excludable and does not deserve to be in the United States, then take their green card but afford them a process greater than some border officer at the port of entry.”
He warned on Bluesky: “The danger of this ruling is that it creates an incentive to use the border as a place where rights are diminished.” Orr said it further sends a troubling message to lawful permanent residents. “I already have clients who have green cards who are just afraid to travel,” he said, “because the government has said, as a green card holder, you’re just now a long-term visitor, we could deny you for anything.” The decision, he concluded, “aligns with the goal of excluding and removing people from the United States that are not US-born nationals.”
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
Venezuela Fury and Noah Price subsidising their life by livestreaming
Venezuela Fury and her husband Noah Price look to be making their own way in the world by raking it in from their lucrative social media accounts.
The influencer daughter of Tyson and Paris Fury, 16, has become an internet sensation after tying the knot with her husband Noah, 19, earlier this year.
Since getting married and moving in together the couple have been earning thousands of pounds a month, livestreaming their life as newlyweds in their static caravan in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
And fans can't get enough of their regular life updates on TikTok and Kick, which have proved to be very profitable for the pair.
They look to be supporting themselves after Noah denied that he was given £5million by Venezuela's family as a wedding gift.
Despite his wife's huge family wealth, an estimated combined £160 million, Noah recently told his Kick followers that he 'pays for everything' for the couple.
Making light of the claims about Venezuela's millionaire financial status, Noah said: 'I actually pay for everything unfortunately. You'd expect the millionaire to pay for it wouldn't you.'
Venezuela Fury and Noah Price are earning thousands livestreaming their caravan life - after her new groom insisted he pays all the bills and denied he had £5m handout from her dad
The influencer daughter of Tyson and Paris Fury , 16, has become an internet sensation after tying the knot with her husband Noah, 19, earlier this year
Venezuela then asked their fans: 'Do you think I am a millionaire?'
Noah joked: 'She isn't a secret millionaire guys', before she broke into song and sang: 'But I live like a millionaire!'
But it seems according to estimated calculations from their social media work, Noah and Venezuela can more than afford to support themselves.
Noah has been livestreaming on platforms such as Kick and TikTok, where viewers can send paid gifts or donations.
He was previously encouraging viewers to send gifts on his honeymoon during livestreams, suggesting this is one revenue stream.
Both Noah and Venezuela have built substantial followings on Instagram and TikTok. They can potentially earn money through sponsored posts, brand collaborations, affiliate links and creator payouts.
Kick allows its creators to take home 95 per cent of the £4.99 subscription cost that fans pay.
Streamers keep 100 per cent of direct tips and donations, minus minor standard payment processing fees.
It is unclear how many subscribers Noah currently has because this information is hidden, but he does have 7,200 followers which is publicly viewable.
An industry insider has suggested Noah is making around £400 per video on TikTok, while Venezuela is likely to make £2,000 due to her following count of 1.3 million.
An industry insider has suggested Noah is making around £400 per video on TikTok, while Venezuela is likely to make £2,000 due to her following count of 1.3 million
In one video on their honeymoon, Noah asked his followers if they'd give them some more gifts now that they were married.
In a TikTok live viewed by 20,000 he said: 'Keep liking our videos people, keep sending gifts.'
After saying thank you to several of his followers he joked they should stick around on the livestream and 'watch Venezuela punch me in the mouth'.
The other half of the honeymooning couple said: 'I am, honestly!'
Noah previously confirmed that the pair don't share their finances after they were asked whether they have a shared bank account.
'She earns her money, I earn mine,' said Noah, as Venezuela joked: 'Yeah, what you gonna do about it.'
Noah went on to debunk the rumour that Tyson gave him £5million when he tied the knot with his daughter as he insisted: 'No Tyson did not give me £5million'.
Meanwhile Venezuela is being eyed up by executives for a fly on the wall TV series.
Noah went on to debunk the rumour that Tyson gave him £5million when he tied the knot with his daughter as he insisted: 'No Tyson did not give me £5million'
Boasting 1.3 million TikTok followers, Venezuela is already entertaining fans with her honest musings and candid moments, from cooking to kitting out her and Noah's static caravan home.
And following the success of the Netflix series At Home With The Furys, it is no wonder bosses are wanting to draw on the Fury popularity.
A TV insider said: 'The couple are not A-list celebrities but everyone has become obsessed with their love story.
'People are genuinely intrigued by them. Whether it’s the fact they have married so young, Venezuela’s famous family or their gypsy lifestyle, they have the ‘X factor'.
'Several TV executives think a proper fly-on-the-wall series following their lives as newlyweds in the gypsy community would be fascinating,' they told The Sun.
It is thought Netflix would be likely to produce the series due to their already established relationship with the Furys.
Venezuela's representatives told The Daily Mail: 'We have many offers on the table regarding Venezuela which we are discussing.'
