Supreme Court
RECENT RULINGS
ON THE DOCKET
Alignment is each justice's general judicial philosophy as commonly described, not a party. Justices don't belong to parties, and they don't always vote with their bloc.
Alignment is each justice's general judicial philosophy as commonly described, not a party. Justices don't belong to parties, and they don't always vote with their bloc.
No. 25-429 · October Term 2025
To remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, must the government prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident’s last reentry into the United States?
Muk Choi Lau, a native and citizen of China, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on September 7, 2007, after several years of traveling to the country as a nonimmigrant. On May 7, 2012, Lau was charged in New Jersey with third-degree trademark counterfeiting. While awaiting trial, he left the United States for a brief period. Upon returning on June 15, 2012, he presented himself at John F. Kennedy International Airport as a returning lawful permanent resident. However, because of his pending charge, immigration authorities declined to admit him outright and instead paroled him into the country pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). Over a year later, in June 2013, Lau pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was sentenced to two years’ probation. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Lau in March 2014, charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Lau argued that he should not have been treated as an arriving alien at the time of reentry and that he was eligible for a discretionary waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).…
From Oyez.
The Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.
Majority: Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts, Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
Dissent: Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan