Last arguments of the term: huge cases for the Fourth Amendment and immigration
Rory Little for SCOTUSBlog previews "[t]wo huge immigration cases, adding to an already significant immigration term" slated for oral argument in the next few weeks:
"Blanche [the current acting attorney general] v. Lau (argument scheduled for Wednesday April 22). . . .
`Lawful permanent residents' in the United States are just what the term implies: non-citizens who have been granted lawful status here, to stay permanently so long as they observe relevant domestic laws. Once granted that `green card' status, LPRs are permitted to travel in and out of the United States. And as the court’s own case description explains, `a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who is returning to the United States after a trip abroad is generally not "regarded as seeking an admission into the United States."” They have already been `admitted' in a permanent way.
In this case, 69-year-old Muk Choi Lau has lived in the United States for almost 20 years as an LPR. In 2012, he took a short trip to his homeland and came back to New Jersey. Under the statute quoted above, Lau says he was not seeking admission' when he returned. However, Lau had been charged with trademark counterfeiting (to which he later pled guilty and received a two-year probation sentence). On that basis, an immigration officer allowed Lau back into the country but said he was being “ `paroled' (a discretionary decision to let immigrants into the country) rather than being let back in without strings, because of the pending-but-not-yet-proved criminal charges. Later, after Lau pled guilty, the government sought his removal . . . .
. . . .
Immigration proceedings went against Lau."
. . . .
Mullin v. Doe (scheduled for argument on Wednesday April 29, the final scheduled argument day of the 2025-26 term). This case is more significant (potentially affecting over 1.3 million people), but I think easier to describe, than Lau. May the Trump administration end Temporary Protected Status that was previously granted to Syrian and Haitian immigrants under a statutory program begun by Congress in 1990? My SCOTUSblog colleague Kelsey Davis published an `explainer' about the case (actually two consolidated cases) last month."
Check out the post for more details and analysis.
