#Immigration case dealing with #GreenCard holders, #SCOTUS sides with #Trump admin
SCOTUS sided with the Trump admin Tuesday in an immigration case dealing with the government’s power over green card holders accused of crimes.
The 6-3 decision centers around an immigration officers’ 2012 decision to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime.
#law
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-immigration-b9ea1079296c0d7be844213986f96e6f
Lau argued that the officer overstepped their authority, & the decision wrongly allowed the #DHS under then-President Obama to swiftly begin #deportation proceedings after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in NJ.
#SCOTUS disagreed. “Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” Justice #ClarenceThomas wrote in the opinion. [seriously? “moral turpitude”? it was clothes.]
@Nonilex I think I am missing something here. If the accused plead guilty, why would the border guard have to establish anything?
@newstik in this case, because of how the law is written, a pivotal question is whether Lau was or was not already admitted to the US, whether he was seeking readmission when he returned.
The border guard classified him, and he challenged the guard's classification. Part of his challenge was over what the guard established.
In short, Lau tried to bring up this establishment as a defense and the Court said no, that argument doesn't hold water. The Court said the guard doesn't have to establish anything (speaking loosly).
