SCOTUS Ruling Allows Officials To Deny Admission To Green Card Holders

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that immigration officials can deny green card holders admission to the country.

The Ruling: The court ruled 6-3 allowing border officials to deny admission to a legal permanent resident (LPR) who is suspected of committing crime under certain circumstances. The ruling authorizes officials to offer admittance via parole when the person is suspected of committing a "crime involving moral turpitude." Justice Clarence Thomas said that border officers do not have "the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence" that a person had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown wrote the dissenting opinion, along with Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan concurring. Brown said that the decision undermined the "benefits and security that come with having a green card." She "worr[ies] that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check," adding that agents at the border could "merely assume" that a green card holder should be demoted to "seeking admission" and justify that decision with "post hoc evidence."

Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card: Outlets on the right, like The Daily Caller (Right bias) and Townhall (Right) tended to highlight the ruling as a win for the Trump administration. Jay Rogers (Lean Right), writing opinion for Townhall, called the court's decision a "straightforward win for executive authority over immigration," adding that the ruling is also being treated by the political left as a "constitutional emergency" even though "It isn't." Rogers mentioned that the ruling does not allow for the revocation of green cards, calling the Alliance for Justice's framing of the decision as an "expanded path for revoking green cards" as "misleading." Rogers asserted that "A Green Card Isn't a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card."

Weaken Due Process: Outlets on the left, like Mother Jones (Left) tended conversely to highlight the dissenting voice of Ketanji Brown. The article said the decision "could have implications for millions of green card holders living in the United States." The article referred to the term "moral turpitude," saying it is "a vaguely defined immigration law term that can cover a wide spectrum of crimes." The headline of the article helped to frame the article around dissenting voices, saying "SCOTUS Gave the Government a 'Blank Check' to Weaken Due Process for Green Card Holders."

Related Ruling: A federal appeals court, also on Tuesday granted the Trump administration the ability to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the country, instead of just near the border. The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The order threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked the Trump administration's use of expedited removal. This decision will make it easier for federal immigration agents to quickly deport immigrants who cannot prove they have lived in the country continuously for two years or longer. The decision allows officials to bypass the court system and quickly deport individuals without the need to go before a judge. Outlets on the right, like The Daily Wire (Right) called the ruling a "big victory to turbocharge deportations." Outlets on the left like NPR (Lean Left), conversely, highlighted the division between the three-judge panel when making the ruling, and highlighted comments saying the "push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system."      

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.