The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for federal border officers to treat some returning green card holders as applicants for admission when they are linked to certain crimes, a decision that strengthens the government’s power in removal cases involving lawful permanent residents.
Court Lowers Border Evidence Requirement
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the conservative majority that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to prove at the port of entry that a returning resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude.
The decision reversed a lower-court ruling that had required the government to meet a higher evidence standard before treating Lau as an applicant for admission. That classification matters because it can make removal easier under immigration law.
Thomas wrote that the statute does not impose the burden Lau sought. The majority said the law permits the government to rely on subsequent proceedings to establish whether a person is inadmissible.
Lau’s Case Started After the China Trip
He then left the United States for a short trip to China. When he returned through JFK Airport, federal immigration officers did not formally admit him as a returning permanent resident.
Instead, they allowed him into the country on immigration parole. That step allowed him to enter physically, but it did not confer on him the same legal status as a formally admitted returning resident.
Legal Fight Turned on Admission Status
The central dispute was not whether border officers could inspect Lau. It was whether they could classify him as seeking admission without already having strong proof of a qualifying crime. Under federal immigration law, lawful permanent residents generally do not have to seek admission when returning from temporary travel abroad. They are usually treated as already admitted.
Lau argued that a pending charge was not enough. He said the government needed clear and convincing evidence at the time he returned before it could move him into the applicant-for-admission category.
The majority says the law allows later proof.
The Supreme Court disagreed with that approach. The majority said the statute does not require officers to prove the criminal issue at the border under the heightened standard Lau requested. The ruling separates the border classification decision from later immigration proceedings. Officers may classify a resident as seeking admission when the statutory exception applies. The government can then litigate the legal basis for removal afterward.
Jackson Warns of Wider Government Power
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Jackson warned that the ruling weakens protections for people who already hold lawful permanent residence. She argued that the majority’s approach allows the government to treat a returning resident as seeking admission first, then justify that decision later if a conviction follows.
Green Card Holders Face Travel Risk
The decision has direct consequences for lawful permanent residents with pending charges, past convictions, or unresolved criminal records. It does not mean every green card holder accused of a crime will be deported. It does mean international travel can carry new legal risk for people whose criminal history may trigger an immigration review.
A person may leave the United States as a lawful permanent resident and return to face a new legal posture at the airport. If officers decide that a statutory exception applies, the person may be treated as seeking admission rather than already being admitted.
Millions Hold Permanent Residence
A green card gives a person legal permission to live and work permanently in the United States. It also allows many residents to travel abroad and return, subject to inspection. The lawful permanent resident population remains large. Federal population estimates placed the number at about 12.8 million people in the United States as of Jan. 1, 2024.
Case Returns to Lower Court
The Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back for more proceedings. The court docket lists the June 23 judgment as vacated and remanded. Lau can still argue that his counterfeiting conviction does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. That issue remains unresolved.
The immediate effect of the ruling is clear. Federal border officers now have wider authority to classify certain returning green card holders as applicants for admission without first meeting the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard at the port of entry.
