Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Fourth Amendment, Immigration Cases

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in several significant cases during the remaining weeks of its term, which concludes at the end of June. Arguments will be heard in *Blanche v. Lau*, a case concerning immigration law. Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States for approximately 20 years, traveled abroad in 2012 and upon his return to New Jersey, an immigration officer designated him as being "paroled" into the country due to pending criminal charges for trademark counterfeiting. Lau later pleaded guilty and received a two-year probation sentence. The government then sought his removal, arguing he was inadmissible because he was paroled rather than formally admitted, leading to deportation procedures. Lau argues that as an LPR returning to the U.S., he should not have been considered as "seeking admission" and therefore should not have been paroled. The government contends his pending criminal charges made him inadmissible upon return. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the immigration officer should have applied the "not seeking admission" rule because the knowledge at the time was only of pending criminal charges. The Supreme Court will consider whether pending criminal charges at the time of return constitute sufficient evidence to deny an LPR admission. Another immigration case, *Mullin v. Doe*, concerns Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Trump administration sought to end TPS designations for nationals of several countries, finding that conditions in those countries no longer met the statutory requirements for the designation which deemed it unsafe for immigrants to return to their home countries. Challenges to the changes have been filed, citing procedural and equal protection concerns. Federal circuit courts upheld stays of the administration's designation changes regarding Haiti and Syria. The solicitor general argues the homeland secretary's TPS decisions are statutorily unreviewable. The Supreme Court will review these cases on April 29 after initially considering the issue through "emergency" stay applications. *Chatrie v. United States* involves Fourth Amendment implications for "geofence" searches. The case stems from a court-approved request to Google following a bank robbery. The request sought location data for devices within a 1,000-foot area, including the bank, at a specific time. Using a multi-step process, authorities identified Okello Chatrie as being in the area and he was subsequently arrested and convicted of bank robbery. No magistrate was consulted after the initial information search warrant issued to Google. The Supreme Court previously addressed cellphone data searches in *Carpenter v. United States*. The current case raises questions about the application of the Fourth Amendment to evolving technology and massive data collection. The solicitor general argues that cellphone users lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their location data, which users share with cellphone companies. Chatrie's legal team argues that the government’s request to Google lacked particularity. Oral arguments for *Chatrie v. United States* are scheduled for April 27.