The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal immigration officers can place legal permanent residents in a legal limbo known as “parole” when they return to the United States after leaving while facing criminal charges, a 6-3 decision that expands the government’s ability to deport them if they are later convicted.
The ruling clears a key obstacle the Trump administration has faced in removing migrants with criminal records who hold green cards.
The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who was a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. but was under criminal indictment when he traveled abroad and attempted to re-enter the country. Border officers, rather than formally admitting him, placed Lau in parole status, a designation that technically keeps someone in the U.S. but does not constitute a full admission.
The distinction matters. Under immigration law, the standard for blocking someone at the border is lower than the standard for removing a green card holder already inside the country. By keeping Lau in parole rather than admitting him, the government preserved the option to use that lower bar against him later.
Lau was subsequently convicted of trademark counterfeiting. Immigration courts ruled he could be deported. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that, finding the government had been wrong to use parole in the first place.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said immigration law explicitly permits border officers to use parole in cases like Lau’s. “We conclude that the Government properly charged Lau with inadmissibility,” Thomas wrote. “Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.”
The ruling does not automatically result in Lau’s deportation. The court left open the question of whether his counterfeiting conviction qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude under the law, meaning further proceedings could follow.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision would push some green card holders “into a state of uncertainty” about their legal status when they return from overseas travel. She said it was backward to allow the government to deny someone formal admission, then wait for a criminal case to resolve before acting.
“I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check,” Jackson wrote.
Under immigration law, lawful permanent residents generally have the right to leave and return to the U.S. without applying for admission each time. That right, however, has an exception for individuals charged with crimes involving “moral turpitude,” a legal term covering a broad range of offenses the law considers inherently wrongful.
The ruling has implications beyond Lau’s case. It gives border officers a clear legal basis to use parole for returning green card holders who have pending criminal cases, buying the government time to assess admissibility after those proceedings conclude. It also means those individuals can be removed more easily once convicted, since they were never formally admitted.
The Trump administration has made deportation of criminal migrants a central pillar of its immigration enforcement agenda. Tuesday’s ruling provides a new tool for that effort, particularly in cases involving green card holders who have traveled abroad.
