The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday in favor of the Trump administration, affirming the federal government’s expansive authority to alter the status of lawful permanent residents returning to the United States if they are accused of criminal activity. The decision allows border authorities to place green card holders on immigration parole rather than standard admission based on suspicion of a qualifying offense, delaying the requirement for formal, heightened evidence until subsequent deportation. It does not, however, automatically strip green card holders of their status or authorize deportation without a hearing, but legal analysts said it lowers the threshold for beginning removal proceedings against returning permanent residents accused of certain offenses.
The case, which began during the Obama administration, is one of several immigration matters currently shaping the Supreme Court’s approach to executive authority and due process. It centered on Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who was charged in New Jersey in 2012 with selling counterfeit goods before taking a brief trip to China. Upon his return, border officials declined to formally admit him and instead granted temporary parole status, allowing removal proceedings to move forward after he later pleaded guilty. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said, “Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.”
The administration argued that requiring immigration authorities to have all evidence available at the border would hinder enforcement and that additional evidence could be developed during later proceedings. The ruling overturns a lower-court decision that had sided with Lau and comes as the high court weighs several other immigration disputes arising amid President Donald Trump’s broader crackdown on immigration.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, warned that the decision leaves lawful permanent residents vulnerable to being placed in “immigration limbo” before guilt is established, exposing them to potential detention, document confiscation, and severe professional or financial instability. “I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check,” Jackson stated, adding that “Congress could not have meant for the guarantees it was affording to be so cavalierly swept aside.”
Editorial credit: Colin Dewar / Shutterstock.com