Impact Fund Statement on Blanche v. Lau Ruling

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Tuesday, June 23, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Blanche v. Lau, ruling 6–3 that immigration officials can deny green card holders’ readmission to the country if they simply suspect that they have committed a crime.

In Justice Thomas’s opinion for the majority, the court held that 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.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Jackson asserted that the court’s opinion undermines “the benefits and security that come with having a green card” and wrote that she is worried that the court has “handed the Government a massive blank check” to put lawful permanent residents in “immigration limbo.”

In response, the Impact Fund issued the following statement:

In her dissent, Justice Jackson named the flaw in this decision. A lawful permanent resident is supposed to be treated as already admitted to this country unless a narrow exception applies.

A green card is a promise of permanence and belonging, earned and relied upon by people who have built their lives here. This decision lets the government set that promise aside on the strength of an accusation. Due process is not a courtesy the government extends when it is convenient. It belongs to all of us, and it is tested most when the government moves against those with the least power to resist.

This ruling arrives amid a sustained effort to turn the law against immigrant communities. The Impact Fund stands with the lawful permanent residents this decision puts at risk, and with the advocates and organizations defending them.

--

Media Contact: communications@impactfund.org

Impact Fund, Berkeley, California