In a decision that could have significant consequences for millions of lawful permanent residents, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday backed the Trump administration’s position in a case involving the government’s authority to detain and place green card holders into deportation proceedings based on suspected criminal activity.
The 6-3 ruling stemmed from the case of Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who was placed on immigration parole by border officials when he returned from a brief trip to China in 2012.
At the time, Lau had been accused, but not convicted, of a counterfeiting-related offense. After he later pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothing in New Jersey, the Department of Homeland Security moved forward with deportation proceedings.
READ: ICE Deportation flights hit highest level under Trump (June 21, 2026)
Lau argued that immigration officials exceeded their authority by treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him on parole before any criminal conviction had been secured.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority that border officers were not required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before taking such action.
“Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” Thomas wrote in the statement.
The ruling is seen as a significant win for the administration’s interpretation of immigration law, reinforcing the government’s ability to place lawful permanent residents into immigration proceedings when there is suspicion of certain criminal conduct.
The decision drew a sharp dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who warned that the court had given immigration authorities broad powers that could affect green card holders long before any criminal conviction is secured.
READ: Indian student on F-1 visa deported after admitting to using weed (March 30, 2026)
In a sharply worded dissent, Jackson argued that Lau was thrust into what she described as “immigration limbo” based solely on allegations rather than a proven offense.
Joined by the court’s other liberal justices, Jackson cautioned that the decision grants immigration authorities sweeping power over permanent residents and could have far-reaching implications for due process protections.
Although the case originated years before President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the ruling arrives amid heightened national debate over immigration enforcement. The administration had argued that a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct is sufficient for authorities to place a green card holder on immigration parole, a position the court ultimately endorsed.