Supreme Court Lowers Bar for Deporting Green Card Holders

The case centers on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and US permanent resident who faced trademark counterfeiting charges in New Jersey. When Lau returned to JFK International Airport in 2012, customs officers paroled him rather than admitting him as a returning resident due to his pending legal issues. Lau eventually pleaded guilty, but his challenge to the initial detention reached the high court, which ultimately sided with the government.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas stated the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require officials to provide definitive proof of disqualifying crimes at the border. Previously, lower courts maintained that officers needed clear evidence of a crime involving moral turpitude—such as fraud or theft—before stripping a resident of their status. Now, immigration officials may initiate removal proceedings or deny entry based on suspicion or pending charges, effectively forcing residents to prove their right to remain in the country.

Three dissenting justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—criticized the ruling as a dangerous expansion of executive power. Justice Jackson warned that the decision grants the government a blank check to undermine the presumption of innocence. By allowing officials to reclassify residents as applicants for admission based on mere allegations, the court has significantly weakened the protections traditionally afforded to those with green cards.