US Supreme Court Ruling Eases Deportation Rules For Green Card Holders: What It Means

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a 6-3 ruling that makes it significantly easier for immigration officials to deny re-entry and initiate deportation proceedings against lawful permanent residents, also known as green card holders, suspected of certain crimes, ABC News reported. The court ruled that federal immigration law does not require border officers to have "clear and convincing evidence" that a resident committed a disqualifying crime before denying them re-entry into the country.

The case behind the ruling

The case behind this ruling involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and a permanent resident in the US. In 2012, he travelled to China while facing trademark counterfeiting charges in New Jersey. Upon his return to JFK International Airport, customs officers paroled him rather than admitting him as a returning resident because of the pending charge.

According to the Courthouse News Service, being paroled into the country, as compared to being admitted, has legal significance. It includes losing access to documents required to live and work in the US.

Lau later pleaded guilty and was ordered deported. He argued that border officers needed "clear and convincing evidence", such as a conviction or confession, of a crime before refusing his returning resident status.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

"Here, the government satisfied its burden at the hearing based 'on the evidence produced at the hearing:' Lau's guilty plea was clear and convincing evidence that, before he attempted to reenter the country, he had committed the crime in question," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote as quoted in the report.

Also read | "Indians Won't Do That": Trump On India As Ukraine Peacekeeper Force Plan

What the court's latest decision changes

Previously, several lower courts required immigration officers to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that a returning green card holder had committed a disqualifying crime before treating them as an "applicant for admission".

"The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," Justice Thomas wrote.

Now, border officers only need a "reason to believe" a green card holder may have committed a crime involving "moral turpitude", such as fraud, theft, or counterfeiting, to treat them as an applicant seeking admission rather than a returning resident.

This allows officers to immediately place them on parole, detain them, or deny entry. They can straightaway begin removal proceedings. The government can establish the actual criminal conviction later during the formal deportation hearings.

Also read | Pentagon Seeks $80 Billion From Congress For Iran War Amid Peace Talks

Why this matters for green card holders

Until now, lawful permanent residents who leave the US for short trips usually re-enter freely. However, exceptions apply for crimes involving "moral turpitude", offences considered dishonest. But the officers can now act on pending charges or mere suspicion rather than waiting for an official conviction. The green card holders will have to understand the legalities associated with this ruling very clearly. 

Once an individual is classified as an "applicant for admission," the legal burden shifts to the individual to prove they deserve to be admitted, rather than on the government to prove they should be excluded.

Also read | Alibaba Sues US For Being Linking It To Chinese Military

Criticism of the ruling

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan warned that the decision gives the government a "massive blank check" to strip green card protections based on allegations rather than proof.

"I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," Jackson wrote in her dissent.

"With today's decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR [Lawful Permanent Resident] 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."

"It is a fundamental maxim in our country that all are innocent until proven guilty," Jackson wrote, further adding that "Lau was divested of his already-admitted status, deemed an applicant for admission, and paroled solely on the basis of" an indictment.

"Congress could not have meant for the guarantees" afforded to lawful permanent residents "to be so cavalierly swept aside," Jackson concluded.

Impact on Indian Americans

Green card holders, including those of Indian origin, travelling abroad now face difficulties at the US border if they have pending criminal legal issues. One thing is clear: immigration officials can reclassify them as applicants seeking admission based on a "reason to believe" a crime was committed, making it easier to begin the deportation process well before they are convicted. The ruling will have an impact on residents of Indian origin. According to the data from the Indian Ministry, over 6.5 million people of Indian origin reside in the US.