Supreme Court Gives Border Agents Broader Power Over Green Card Holders Accused of Crimes

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.

The 6-3 ruling in Washington involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident who returned through John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York in 2012 while facing a New Jersey trademark counterfeiting charge. The Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need “clear and convincing evidence” at the border before placing him in that more vulnerable immigration category.

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.

The ruling does not decide whether Lau’s counterfeiting conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude. The case now returns to the lower court for further review.

Lau’s Case Started After the China Trip

Lau became a lawful permanent resident in 2007. Five years later, New Jersey charged him with third-degree trademark counterfeiting.

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.

Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge. Federal authorities then sought to remove him, arguing that he was inadmissible because of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Legal Fight Turned on Admission Status

Close-up of a wooden gavel on a judge's desk, symbolizing justice. — Image Credit: SHOX ART/ Pexels

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.

There are exceptions. One applies when a returning resident has committed certain crimes, including crimes involving moral turpitude.

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 Second Circuit agreed with Lau in 2025. The appe