The Federalist90%
SCOTUS Upholds Border Officials’ Ability To Parole Green Card Holders Who ‘Committed’ Crimes 7%
By Shawn Fleetwood59%
6/23/2026, 4:28:44 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Circular Reasoning, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 13.6% saturation with 61 hits. Analysis detected 447 faulty-reasoning hits from 450 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.7% and a BS Rank of 7% (19,127 of 20,518 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.20% of the article peer group.
The U.S.
Supreme Court upheld border officials’ ability to parole green card holders who have “committed a crime involving moral turpitude” on Tuesday.
The matter at issue in Blanche v.
Lau dates back to 2012 when Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident (LPR) in the United States, was charged with trademark counterfeiting.
Lau was placed on parole upon reentry into the United States, a decision he challenged as unlawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) following his 2013 conviction.
He essentially contended that officials weren’t permitted to parole him since he hadn’t been formally convicted at the time of reentry.
As Justice Clarence Thomas explained for the 6-3 majority, Lau was paroled “pending the resolution of his criminal case, meaning that he was allowed to physically enter the country without being formally admitted.
” It was following Lau’s decision to plead guilty that the government “initiated removal proceedings and secured a removal order based on his conviction.”
Thomas noted that “[n]othing in the INA required the border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming him an applicant for admission.
” Under the admissibility steps required by the INA, he added, “Lau was correctly charged with inadmissibility.
”
“At step one, the Government properly regarded him as an alien seeking admission because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before attempting to reenter the country … So, at step two, he was inadmissible and therefore removable if he satisfied any statutory ground for inadmissibility, including that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,” Thomas wrote.
The court concluded that the government possessed the statutory right to charge Lau with inadmissibility and parole him.
The justices remanded the case back to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for “further proceedings” in light of its decision and to weigh Lau’s arguments that his crime “was not one involving moral turpitude.
”
[READ: SCOTUS Weighs Whether US Has To Readmit Green Card Holders Who ‘Committed’ Crimes]
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Writing on behalf of her fellow Democrat appointees, Jackson argued that “the governing law’s text, structure, and context show that the majority’s view cannot possibly be what Congress intended.
”
“Having enshrined a returning LPR’s already-admitted status, Congress could not have meant for the guarantees it was affording to be so cavalierly swept aside.
By law, LPRs are as close to citizenship as one can get absent naturalization,” Jackson wrote.
“Today, the majority ignores that crucial fact and empowers Government officials to act accordingly.
”
Speakers
2speakers56%attributed speech196writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
98%flagged-word coverageKetanji Brown Jackson
85 attributed words33% of attributed speech38% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.