Why it Could be Bad News for Immigrants if Trump Admin Loses This SCOTUS Case

In a case over the removal of a Chinese national with a green card and criminal charges, a majority of Supreme Court justices appeared to lean toward the Trump administration Wednesday but pressed the government for clarity.

The plaintiff in the case suing to block his removal is Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national charged with counterfeiting before leaving the United States. He pleaded guilty after returning and being placed on parole by immigration officials, and the Department of Homeland Security later began removal proceedings.

The Immigration and Nationality Act says that green card holders who leave the country and re-enter are generally not regarded as seeking admission into the United States. However, an exception exists for “a crime involving moral turpitude,” which would include fraud or theft.

Lau’s attorney Shay Dvoretzky argued his client, as a lawful permanent resident, or LPR, not yet convicted of a crime, should have been allowed back into the country and not paroled.

“The INA’s text and structure, plus historical practice, made clear that an officer must decide at the border whether an LPR is seeking admission, and at the search stage,” he said. He later added, “Whether an LPR is seeking admission must be determined at the border.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said a loss for the government in this case would likely be harmful for lawful permanent residents.

“To show that there’s clear and convincing evidence that someone engaged in criminal conduct or committed a crime, it doesn’t say convicted. So you either just give it up and gut those provisions, or what do you do?” Barrett asked. “Do you detain LPRs, and do you set up some sort of adjudicatory proceeding? And how would that be judicially reviewable?”

Assistant to the Solicitor General Sopan Joshi said detention and removal would be the only viable alternatives to parole in such a case.

“Parole has a significant public benefit in these circumstances. It benefits the public because it means someone facing a criminal charge can be held responsible for his crimes,” Joshi said. “It benefits, in most instances, the LPR, because they can organize their defense from within the country while they’re free and not detained, and can maybe even plea bargain down to charges that don’t carry immigration consequences. And it benefits the government, because we don’t have to fill up a detention bed with someone who’s maybe otherwise safe.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the government sought too much power over a green card holder.

“I don’t understand why the border officer suddenly has so much power to deprive a person who has a green card based on a suspicion or even an indictment when the statute seems to require conviction,” Jackson said.

Joshi corrected Jackson on the language of the law.

“The statute does not require conviction. The difference between commission and conviction runs throughout the INA,” Joshi said. “If Congress had intended to require the conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude … it would have just said so. Congress didn’t say that. It said ‘committed’ an offense.”

Legal experts have predicted a fairly easy win for the Trump administration in the case, which concerns a removal proceeding that began during the Obama administration.

The case is Blanche v. Lau, renamed for Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche after initially being Bondi v. Lau for former Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Lau, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was charged in May 2012 on New Jersey state charges for selling nearly $300,000 worth of knockoff Coogi shorts.

Before his trial, he left the country but returned on June 12, when immigration officers at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York stopped him.

Immigration officers determined that Lau was subject to the INA’s “moral turpitude” exception and paroled him. That allowed him to stay in the U.S. temporarily to face prosecution, but deferred his eligibility for admission.

A year later, he pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting and was sentenced to two years’ probation. In March 2014—during the Obama administration—the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Lau on the grounds that he wasn’t eligible for admission.

Lau challenged the immigration officials’ 2012 decision to parole him rather than admit him into the country. He contended he was improperly classified.

After an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the government, Lau appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

In March 2025, the 2nd Circuit sided with Lau, ruling that he had been improperly classified by immigration officials at the New York airport and ordering the immigration court to terminate the removal proceedings.