Blanche v. Lau
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Blanche v. Lau and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Blanche v. Lau.
The Supreme Court addressed whether a lawful permanent resident, Muk Choi Lau, could be deemed an applicant for admission without clear and convincing evidence of committing a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court found that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require such evidence at the border. The case was remanded to the Second Circuit for further proceedings.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Blanche v. Lau.
The Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence of a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming a resident an applicant for admission.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Blanche v. Lau. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Blanche v. Lau
The case involves the procedural requirements for determining whether a lawful permanent resident is seeking admission and the burden of proof required.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Second Circuit resisted this straightforward analysis based on a conclusion that the Government had the burden 'to prove by clear and convincing evidence that [Lau] actually committed the crime in question at the time of reentry.'
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Blanche v. Lau
The case addresses the authority of border officers and the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding the admission of lawful permanent residents.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court declines to read into the INA an additional clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers entrusted with making 'quick judgments on the spot' when that burden is nowhere in the statute or even Board precedent.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Blanche v. Lau that support the summary and concepts above.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence.
The Government satisfied its burden at the hearing: Lau’s guilty plea was clear and convincing evidence.
The Court declines to read into the INA an additional clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers.