US Supreme Court backs Trump in Green Card parole case

The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a significant immigration case, bolstering federal authority in initiating removal proceedings against green card holders suspected of criminal activity. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that immigration officials do not need to establish clear and convincing evidence of a crime involving moral turpitude before placing a lawful permanent resident on immigration parole.

The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident accused of trademark counterfeiting. Upon returning to the U.S. from a trip abroad in 2012, Lau was placed on immigration parole, effectively treating him as someone seeking admission rather than a returning resident. This classification enabled the government to commence deportation proceedings against him.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that border officers are not burdened with proving guilt at the point of entry. This interpretation grants immigration officials greater flexibility, allowing them to act on criminal allegations and use evidence developed later in immigration proceedings, rather than relying solely on information available at the border.

However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent joined by two other liberal justices, expressed concern that the ruling could trap immigrants in "immigration limbo," facing prolonged legal uncertainty. She argued that decisions should be based on information available at the time of reentry. The Trump administration had contended that a higher evidentiary standard at the border would hinder effective enforcement and rapid response to suspected criminal conduct.

“

border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.