WASHINGTON: The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday (local time) issued a ruling making it easier for border authorities to deport lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, accused of crimes involving “moral turpitude”.
In a 6-3 ruling authored by US Justice Clarence Thomas in Blanche v. Lau, the court held that immigration officials do not need to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that a returning green card holder committed a disqualifying offence before denying admission.
Instead, authorities need only establish that there is “reason to believe” such an offence may have been committed. “The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement,” Thomas wrote in the majority opinion issued following the ruling.
The decision effectively strengthens the powers of border agents to deny entry and initiate removal proceedings against lawful permanent residents arriving at US ports of entry if they are suspected of involvement in crimes involving “moral turpitude”.
MASSIVE WIN: The U.S. Supreme Court just sided with the Trump administration in a 6-3 decision (Blanche v. Lau) ALLOWING the Department of Homeland Security to treat green card holders / lawful permanent residents as “seeking admission” and STRIP or SUSPEND their legal status… pic.twitter.com/9UI4CxXlqF
— RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) June 23, 2026
According to ABC News, the ruling marks a setback for petitioner Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and US green card holder.
Lau was initially deemed inadmissible at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 after returning from China, while facing New Jersey state charges related to trademark counterfeiting. He was conditionally allowed re-entry at the time.
US immigration law generally permits green card holders who travel abroad for short periods to re-enter the country but includes exceptions if the individual is convicted of, or admits to, committing a “crime involving moral turpitude”, as reported by ABC News.
Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was subsequently ordered deported. He continued to challenge the removal proceedings, arguing that the offence did not qualify as one involving “moral turpitude”.
In the dissent note, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said the government should bear the burden of first proving that a green card holder actually committed a disqualifying offence before revoking their status.
“I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check,” Jackson wrote. She further noted that “With today’s decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of ‘seeking admission’ upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the law.” (ANI)
