Supreme Court rules against lawful permanent resident in border admission dispute

In the fifth and final opinion announced Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court sided with the government in a case concerning how returning lawful permanent residents with pending criminal charges should be treated at the border.

In a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that immigration officials do not need to present “clear and convincing evidence” that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating the individual as an applicant for admission rather than as an already-admitted resident. 

The majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson authored a dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

The decision resolves a circuit split and strengthens the government’s position in removal proceedings involving returning non-citizens with criminal histories. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings on whether Lau’s specific offense qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude.

More opinions are expected Thursday.