The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday that border officers can place a lawful permanent resident on immigration parole - effectively suspending their entry - based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, without first proving the crime by clear and convincing evidence. The case is Lau v. Garland, and it is a straightforward win for executive authority over immigration. It is also a ruling that the political left is treating as a constitutional emergency. It isn't.

Muk Choi Lau is a lawful permanent resident who returned from a trip to China in 2012. A border officer, aware that Lau had been accused of selling counterfeit clothing in New Jersey, placed him on immigration parole rather than admitting him as a returning resident. The parole decision meant that instead of re-entering in his full lawful-permanent-resident status, Lau was treated as a new arrival - which changed the government's removal options when he later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge. Lau argued the officer lacked authority to make that call without meeting a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for the underlying crime. The Supreme Court disagreed.

"Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. The immigration statute grants broad discretionary authority to parole applicants "for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit." Thomas read that grant of authority as applying to returning residents in certain circumstances........

© Townhall