Supreme Court: Suspicion Alone Justifies Green Card
Get the Geopolitics newsletter
Daily geopolitics — wars, elections, sanctions, the diplomatic moves that move markets. Free.
- U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that an allegation of criminal wrongdoing is sufficient for a border officer to place a lawful permanent resident on immigration parole, siding with the Trump administration in a case challenging due-process protections for legal migrants.
- Muk Choi Lau, a green card holder, was placed on immigration parole in 2012 upon returning from a trip to China after being accused of selling counterfeit clothing, though he had not been convicted of any crime.
- Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, holding that border officers did not need to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude to justify the parole designation.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by the court's two other liberal judges, warning the ruling gives the government a "massive blank check" and leaves non-citizens in "immigration limbo" before any conviction.
- The Trump administration argued that suspicion of a crime is sufficient to strip green card holders of their legal status, framing the case as part of a broader push to roll back legal protections for migrants and expand deportation powers.
Why it matters: The 6-3 decision lowers the evidentiary bar for federal officers to strip legal permanent residents of their status at the border — no conviction or even clear-and-convincing evidence required, just suspicion. Justice Jackson's dissent warns this effectively subjects roughly 12+ million green card holders to potential parole and removal based on unproven allegations, giving immigration agents sweeping new discretion at ports of entry.
Ask SkimNews
