Archived SI output (machine-generated)

Re-decided: A lawful permanent resident may be deemed 'seeking admission' only upon conviction (or clear and convincing evidence of commission) of a qualifying crime at the time of reentry.

Mode: Scotus Opinion Generated by VFA SI Solutions Drafted: 2026.07.01

Archived SI output (machine-generated) · No editorial review recorded

This historical SI draft was machine-generated by software and has no editorial review time on record. Verify its factual and legal claims against the original source before relying on it.

Supreme Court opinion

Blanche v. Lau

Clarence Thomas

Author

Clarence Thomas

Filed

2026-06-23

Citation

—

→ View original

Archived SI draft (machine-generated)

Re-decided: A lawful permanent resident may be deemed 'seeking admission' only upon conviction (or clear and convincing evidence of commission) of a qualifying crime at the time of reentry.

The constitutional question is whether the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires 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, thereby subjecting him to removal on inadmissibility rather than deportability grounds.

Constitutional concerns with the original

The majority opinion reads a statutory exception—'has committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2)'—to allow border officers to presume commission based on a mere pending charge, without requiring conviction or clear evidence. This conflates commission with charge, which is not supported by the text's natural meaning; 'has committed' means the fact of commission, not accusation.
The majority ignores the Fifth Amendment Due Process implications of removing a lawful permanent resident (who has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining) based on a standard of proof (preponderance) that is lower than the clear-and-convincing evidence standard typically required in deportation proceedings. See Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966) (requiring clear and convincing evidence for deportability). Even though Woodby is post-ratification, the original meaning of Due Process at the founding required robust proof for government deprivations of liberty—especially banishment, which is akin to removal.
The majority permits parole (physical entry without admission) to avoid the procedural protections that attach to 'admission.' This creates a loophole that effectively allows the executive to indefinitely detain or later remove a permanent resident without a hearing, which the Tenth Amendment and the structural principle of limited federal power caution against. The only express federal power over immigration is to regulate naturalization (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4) and to regulate commerce with foreign nations (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3); the majority's expansive reading of the INA goes beyond these enumerated powers.

Solution text

1. The question presented is whether the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows a border officer to treat a lawful permanent resident as an applicant for admission—and thus removable on inadmissibility grounds—based solely on a pending criminal charge, without requiring clear and convincing evidence that the resident actually committed the alleged crime. 2. The relevant constitutional text provides: (a) the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) grants Congress power to make laws for executing its enumerated powers, including naturalization (Clause 4); (b) the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of liberty without due process of law; (c) the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the United States. The INA does not explicitly authorize border officers to unilaterally reclassify permanent residents as inadmissible based on unproven allegations—such a power is not necessary and proper to execute the naturalization power, because conviction or clear evidence of commission is a reasonable, liberty-protecting requirement. 3. At the ratification era, the founding generation understood that banishment or expulsion after lawful entry required a judicial determination of guilt or at least clear proof of wrongdoing. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause was intended to prevent government from depriving persons of their life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. Lawful permanent residents, though not citizens, enjoy significant liberty interests under the common law and the Bill of Rights. Blackstone and early American authorities recognized that aliens lawfully within the country could not be removed without a judicial process and proof of their misdeeds. The original meaning of 'due process' thus requires that before a permanent resident is stripped of his admitted status and subjected to removal on inadmissibility grounds, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has committed the qualifying crime. 4. The holding: The INA's phrase 'has committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2)' (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v)) means that a lawful permanent resident may be regarded as seeking admission only if the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that the resident actually committed such an offense. This standard is satisfied by a conviction, but not by a mere charge or arrest. The government bears the burden to present this evidence at the removal hearing—not at the border, where quick judgments are permissible for temporary parole, but the final determination of inadmissibility must rest on clear and convincing proof. 5. What changes downstream: (a) The Second Circuit's judgment is affirmed as modified: the removal order is vacated, and the government may reinstitute removal proceedings only if it proves by clear and convincing evidence that Lau committed a crime involving moral turpitude at the time of his reentry. A guilty plea admits the commission, so the government can likely meet this burden. (b) The rule announced applies only to permanent residents who were previously admitted and have a due process liberty interest; arriving aliens not yet admitted have no such protection. (c) The government must re-prove the commission element on remand using clear and convincing evidence; Lau's conviction is admissible but the government must also show it relates to conduct that occurred before the reentry.

Operative provisions

remedy

The removal order is vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, specifically: the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lau committed a crime involving moral turpitude before his attempted reentry on June 15, 2012.

stare decisis treatment

The holding in Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), is limited to the retroactivity question addressed there; its dictum in footnote 11 is disavowed to the extent it conflicts with this opinion. The rule from Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966), requiring clear and convincing evidence for deportability, is extended to the 'seeking admission' determination under § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) for lawful permanent residents. The Board's precedent in Matter of Valenzuela-Felix, 26 I&N Dec. 53, is disapproved to the extent it allows a lower standard.

scope of holding

This decision applies only to lawful permanent residents who have been previously admitted and are returning from a temporary absence abroad. It does not affect the treatment of arriving aliens who have never been admitted, nor does it alter the standard for determining inadmissibility based on a conviction after reentry. The clear-and-convincing evidence standard applies to the element of 'commission' under § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), not to other elements of inadmissibility such as the nature of the crime.

Bipartisan rationale

This textualist holding respects both Democratic priorities (protecting due process rights and preventing arbitrary government action against individuals with settled permanent resident status) and Republican priorities (respecting strict textual readings of statutes without judicial invention of new burdens, and allowing the government to remove criminals once proper proof is established). Both parties can recognize that requiring clear and convincing evidence—a conviction or equivalent proof—before reclassifying a permanent resident as an applicant for admission is faithful to the original constitutional separation of powers: it ensures that removal decisions rest on judicial or quasi-judicial findings, not on unilateral executive discretion at the border. This aligns with the conservative constitutional tradition of limited government and the liberal tradition of procedural fairness.

Constitutional citations

→ Article I, Section 8, Clause 4
→ Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
→ Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
→ Tenth Amendment
→ Federalist No. 45 (Madison) (limitation of federal power)

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 Amendment V Amendment X

Report an error in this Solution

Citizen Consensus

“Do you support this VFA SI Solution?”

One vote per verified account; you can change it any time. Only verified accounts count, results publish once 30 verified people have voted, and state and district results count only people who attested a home ZIP code. How this works.

Email verification is not switched on yet, so no vote counts toward results yet. Votes cast now are saved and count once the voter verifies their email address.

Add a short reason (optional)

/280 · no links or contact details · reasons are reviewed before anyone sees them, and many never are shown.

Your vote is saved but held out of published results by an automated integrity check (for example, several accounts voting from one browser).

Your vote is saved. It will count once you verify your email address. Verify on your account page.

Your vote counts nationally. Add your home ZIP code to count in your state and district too.

Your vote counts nationally and in .

Reason saved privately; it is shown only if it passes review.

A sudden surge of votes on this item was flagged and is under review; votes from new accounts in that surge are held out until it is resolved.

National, state and district results →

Generated by VFA SI Solutions · 2026.07.01 06:02 UTC · ← Back to the Republic