The United States Supreme Court has handed down a decision in an immigration case, siding with the government over the treatment of a lawful permanent resident. According to the coverage, the court ruled that border officers did not carry the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the man had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before he was placed on immigration parole. The opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The case centers on an immigration officer's 2012 decision involving a lawful permanent resident, also known as a green card holder. According to the report, the officer placed the man on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China, because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime. The underlying conduct involved selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey, to which he later pleaded guilty.
The defendant challenged how that decision was made. He argued that the officer had overstepped his authority and that the move wrongly allowed the Department of Homeland Security to begin deportation proceedings against him. The dispute reached the high court as a question about how much an officer must establish before subjecting a green card holder to that process.
The justices in the majority rejected that challenge. In the opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that border officers did not have the burden to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant had committed a crime involving moral turpitude. The ruling effectively endorsed the authority exercised by the officer in placing the man on immigration parole.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed sharply in dissent. She wrote that the decision, by putting the man on immigration parole, effectively sentenced him to immigration limbo before he had been convicted of any crime. In a passage from her dissent, she warned, I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check. Her dissent was joined by her two liberal colleagues.
The decision comes as the high court weighs a series of immigration related issues amid President Trump's sweeping immigration crackdown, although this particular case began before he took office. According to the coverage, the administration argued that suspicion of a crime is enough to place a green card holder on immigration parole, urging an expansive view of executive authority over immigration. The court is also considering cases over the push to end birthright citizenship and a restrictive order affecting migrants fleeing war and natural disasters, with more decisions expected on Thursday.