The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in an immigration case dealing with the government’s power over green card holders accused of crimes, centering on a lawful permanent resident placed on immigration parole after returning from a trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime. The decision shapes how DHS officers can invoke parole authority against LPR clients with criminal exposure.
What changed
The 6-3 decision centers around an immigration officers’ 2012 decision to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime. Lau argued that overstepped the officer’s authority, and the decision wrongly allowed the Department of Homeland Security to swiftly begin deportation proceedings after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey.
The Trump administration argued that suspicion of a crime is enough to put a lawful permanent resident on immigration parole. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion that “border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.” The majority upheld the broad authority.
Why it matters
For practitioners advising green-card holders with any criminal exposure—whether an accusation, arrest, or conviction—this ruling significantly expands DHS’s ability to remove an LPR from ordinary removal proceedings and place them on parole status. Parole status can accelerate deportation timelines and limit avenues for relief.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the decision effectively sentenced an LPR to “immigration limbo” before conviction, and she warned that “the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check.” The majority’s standard—mere suspicion, without proof—reduces procedural safeguards your client would otherwise have in removal hearings.
If your LPR client returns from abroad and is flagged for any crime—suspected, charged, or pled guilty—CBP or immigration officers now have explicit Supreme Court backing to invoke parole authority on the spot. Once paroled, the client enters expedited removal proceedings.
Way forward
- Advise LPR clients with any criminal history or pending criminal charges to consult a criminal defense attorney and an immigration attorney before traveling abroad. Return is now a trigger point for parole.
- If an LPR is paroled at a port of entry, request all charging documents and basis for the parole decision immediately. File any challenge to parole authority in removal proceedings or before a federal district court if applicable.
- In removal cases post-parole, litigate whether the underlying crime triggers deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) and whether relief such as cancellation of removal or VAWA applies, since the parole status may compress your timeline.
- Document the parole notice and conditions to preserve the record for any appeal or future litigation.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information here is based on media reporting and the Supreme Court’s decision; immigration law is complex and rapidly evolving, and you should consult a licensed immigration attorney for advice on your specific situation. Verify all details against the primary source and the actual Supreme Court opinion. Policies and legal interpretations can change without notice.