Blanche v. Lau, Docket No. 25-429
Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube
The government now has a lower barrier to deporting longtime permanent residents. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that border officers can treat green card holders as first-time visitors trying to enter the country, stripping away legal protections that have existed for decades, even if those officers have no solid evidence of wrongdoing at the moment. The consequences are tangible and can include confiscated green cards, lost jobs and years trapped in legal limbo. This case will affect how border agents treat millions of Americans with permanent resident status.
What Happened to Muk Choi Lau
Muk Choi Lau had lived legally in the United States for nearly 20 years with a green card. Before a brief trip to China, he had been accused of trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey. When he returned to JFK Airport, border officers didn't formally let him back in as a returning resident. Instead, they gave him a different status called parole. His case would proceed. Though he was accused of a crime, legal definitions agree he hadn't committed the crime at the time he was reentering. It meant losing his green card, losing work authorization, and facing removal proceedings. After more than a year, he pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and the government moved to deport him. A federal appeals court said the government needed strong evidence of his crime before it could treat him this way. The Supreme Court disagreed.
The Government's Argument
The government said immigration law works in two steps. First, if a green card holder has committed certain crimes, he can be treated as someone seeking entry for the first time. Second, if he's been convicted of that crime, he can be deported. The government argued these are separate questions in each step. Border officers don't need proof at the airport, the government said. They just need to make a classification decision. The actual evidence comes later, at a removal hearing. Requiring officers to gather evidence at the border would slow everything down and essentially turn airports into courtrooms.
Lau's Counterargument
Lau said the law doesn't work that way. The statute uses the phrase "shall not," which he argued is a firm command. The government must prove he committed a crime before it can strip away his returning resident status. He also pointed out the practical consequences of losing his green card, losing the ability to work, and spending years in legal uncertainty while fighting deportation. Civil rights groups backed him up, warning that this ruling would give the government unchecked power to reclassify green card holders whenever it wanted.
What the Supreme Court Decided
Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, said the two-step process works the way the government described. A green card holder can be reclassified as a first-time visitor if that person committed a qualifying crime. A conviction for that crime makes him deportable. These are separate requirements met at different times. The majority rejected the idea that border officers need strong evidence before making the reclassification. The law doesn't say they do, the Court noted. And the immigration agency's own rules put the evidentiary burden at the removal hearing, not at the border.
The Court also made a linguistic point: "has committed" refers to the act of committing a crime, not to being formally convicted of one. As Justice Thomas wrote, "One does not commit a conviction." Because Lau's guilty plea satisfied the conviction requirement at his removal hearing, the deportation order was valid.
The Dissent's Warning
Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, saw a dangerous problem with timing. The government, she argued, must prove someone committed a crime before it takes away their returning resident status, not after. The law's language signals these questions should be answered at the border, by border officers, at the moment someone returns home. The majority's approach lets the government work backward, using a conviction months or years later to justify a border decision made without any real basis at the time.
Justice Jackson also highlighted what this means in real life. Lau carried a handwritten paper card as proof of his legal status for 14 years. Being paroled instead of admitted shifted the legal burden onto him, made his legal process harder, and affected his ability to work and find housing. The dissent warned that the majority's ruling gives the government essentially unlimited power to override the law's basic protection for returning residents.
Green Card Holders Traveling Between Countries
If you're a green card holder, the government can now treat you as a first-time visitor at the border based on suspicion alone, then justify that decision later with evidence gathered after the fact. The law used to require the government to prove its case before taking away your status. Now it doesn't. The Court left open the possibility that some evidentiary standard might apply at the border, but by allowing the government to use later evidence, it may have made any such standard meaningless. For millions of permanent residents, this decision means less protection when they travel and return home.