Supreme Court Sides With Trump in Green Card Holders Case

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration in a case that significantly expands the government’s power over lawful permanent residents, holding that immigration officers do not need “clear and convincing evidence” that a green card holder has committed a disqualifying crime before denying them admission at the border.

The decision in Blanche v. Lau vacated a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and represents a major victory for the administration’s immigration enforcement approach, with implications for thousands of legal permanent residents across the country.

The Case at the Center

The dispute centered on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in September 2007. In May 2012, Lau was arrested and charged in New Jersey for allegedly selling nearly $300,000 worth of counterfeit Coogi shorts. One month later, when he returned from a short trip to China, immigration officers determined that his pending counterfeiting charge triggered an exception under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for “crimes involving moral turpitude.”

Rather than admitting him, officers paroled Lau — allowing him to enter the U.S. temporarily to face prosecution. He pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting in June 2013 and was sentenced to two years’ probation. Because he had been paroled rather than admitted, the Department of Homeland Security was able to pursue removal proceedings on the ground that he was “ineligible for admission” under the INA.

According to AP News, Lau argued that the immigration officer overstepped their authority and that the decision wrongly allowed an easier path to removal.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The Court held that “Nothing in the INA imposes” a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers making admission decisions.

As SCOTUSblog reported, Thomas wrote that the Court declined “to read into the INA an additional clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers entrusted with making ‘quick judgments on the spot’ when that burden is nowhere in the statute or even Board precedent.”

The majority also rejected Lau’s argument that a lawful permanent resident cannot be found to have committed a crime involving moral turpitude until convicted. Thomas wrote that “the Government may regard a lawful permanent resident as seeking admission as soon as he ‘committed’ a crime involving moral turpitude ‘even if (as in [Lau’s] case) the conviction occurred’ later.”

The Dissent

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a sharp dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Jackson argued that the ruling undermines the protections afforded to green card holders and warned that the Court had handed the government “a massive blank check.”

“It is a fundamental maxim in our country that all are innocent until proven guilty,” Jackson wrote in her dissent. “Congress could not have meant for the guarantees afforded to lawful permanent residents to be so cavalierly swept aside.”

The official opinion was issued on June 23, 2026, following oral arguments held on April 22.

Broader Implications

The ruling has immediate and long-term consequences for immigration law in the United States. For green card holders, it makes it easier for immigration officers to deny admission to lawful permanent residents who have been accused — but not yet convicted — of crimes involving moral turpitude. This could affect thousands of LPRs returning from international travel.

The liberal advocacy group Alliance for Justice said the ruling “could provide an expanded path for revoking green cards.” In contrast, Advancing American Freedom, a conservative group founded by former 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.”

What’s Next

The case has been remanded to the 2nd Circuit, which must now apply the Supreme Court’s ruling. Lau’s removal proceedings will continue under the lower evidentiary standard.

The decision comes as the Supreme Court considers a series of other major immigration cases, including challenges to the administration’s push to end birthright citizenship, efforts to revive restrictive asylum policies, and the termination of temporary legal protections for migrants fleeing war and natural disasters. The cumulative effect of these rulings could fundamentally reshape U.S. immigration law.

Whether Congress will respond with legislative fixes remains an open question. Justice Jackson’s dissent suggested that lawmakers did not intend for green card holders to be treated this way, but the political dynamics of immigration reform remain deeply polarized.