Green card holders will face greater scrutiny at US borders after SC ruling

The decision comes as the high court considers a series of immigration-related issues against the backdrop of President Donald Trump's sweeping immigration crackdown

The US Supreme Court has handed the Trump administration a significant victory on immigration enforcement, ruling that border officials do not need clear and convincing evidence of criminal conduct before treating a returning green card holder as someone seeking admission into the country — a classification that can ultimately pave the way for deportation proceedings.

 

In a 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, the court overturned a lower court ruling that had required immigration authorities to possess stronger evidence at the time of a lawful permanent resident's re-entry into the United States.

 

The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who was placed on immigration parole after returning from a brief trip to China in 2012 while facing counterfeiting-related criminal charges in New Jersey. Following his later guilty plea, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. Lau argued that immigration authorities had improperly treated him as an applicant for admission before he had been convicted of any crime.

   

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Immigration and Nationality Act permits authorities to regard a green card holder as seeking admission if the individual has "committed" a crime involving moral turpitude, and that border officials are not required to establish that fact through clear and convincing evidence at the point of entry.

 

The ruling sends the case back to lower courts to determine whether Lau's offence qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude, a key category under US immigration law.

 

Dissent warns of a "blank check"

 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, sharply disagreed with the ruling, arguing that it weakens protections traditionally afforded to lawful permanent residents.

 

"I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check," Jackson wrote in her dissent, warning that authorities could now classify returning green card holders as applicants for admission first and justify that decision later during removal proceedings.

 

The dissent argued that the decision undermines the security associated with permanent residency and creates uncertainty for lawful immigrants travelling abroad.

 

Immigration lawyers had warned of broader implications

 

The case had attracted significant attention from immigration lawyers and advocacy groups even before the ruling because of its potential implications for the nearly 13 million lawful permanent residents in the United States.

 

Several immigration law experts had warned that a ruling in favour of the government could expand the circumstances under which green card holders are treated as applicants for admission when returning from international travel.

 

Law firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP noted ahead of the hearing that the case could have "significant consequences" for permanent residents by making it easier for border authorities to classify returning green card holders as seeking admission, potentially exposing them to detention and removal proceedings.  "If the court rules in favor of the administration, the most significant result of this decision is that practically a lawful permanent resident may be placed in mandatory detention, pending a full hearing on the merits of their case. The vehicle for release from detention would be a federal habeas corpus petition. Other consequences to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the administration would include a shift in the burden of proof from the government to the permanent resident, with immediate consequences to permanent residents returning to the United States and the possibility of being placed in mandatory detention. In addition, even minor criminal charges could trigger a border agent to determine that a returning permanent resident might be admitted to the United States in parole status; therefore, initiating removal proceedings and the mandatory detention provisions of the law," Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP 2026 had said in a post before the SC ruling.

 

Immigration attorney Cyrus Mehta had argued that the Second Circuit's earlier ruling offered stronger protection for permanent residents because it prevented authorities from treating returning green card holders as applicants for admission based merely on suspicion that a crime had been committed.

 

Similarly, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), which backed Lau, warned during the litigation that the government's position could reduce permanent residency to a status that can be disrupted at the border based on suspicion alone.

 

Following Tuesday's ruling, some immigration practitioners said the decision reinforces the importance of seeking legal advice before international travel if a green card holder has pending criminal charges or unresolved criminal matters.  

The liberal group Alliance for Justice said the ruling could provide an expanded path for revoking green cards.

 

But Advancing American Freedom, a group founded by former Republican Vice President Mike Pence, called it an important case to allow the removal of people who “abuse the privilege of being granted lawful permanent resident status.”

 

Part of a wider immigration battle

 

The decision arrives as the Supreme Court considers several other major immigration disputes linked to President Donald Trump's broader immigration agenda, including challenges involving birthright citizenship, asylum restrictions and temporary protections for migrants.

 

While the Lau case originated long before Trump's return to office, the administration had urged the court to adopt an expansive interpretation of executive authority, arguing that suspicion of criminal conduct can be sufficient grounds to place a lawful permanent resident on immigration parole pending further proceedings.

 

Why should you care? 

The ruling may make international travel riskier for green card holders with pending criminal matters because border officials now have broader discretion to treat them as applicants for admission and place them into removal proceedings.  With inputs from AP