On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that border agents can place green card holders on immigration parole based on criminal suspicion alone, rejecting a challenge by Muk Choi Lau. Concurrently, a federal appeals court cleared the Trump administration to expand fast-track deportations nationwide for non-citizens in the U.S. under two years. Dissenting judges warn these decisions weaken due process and hand the government a blank check.
Supreme Court immigration parole ruling
- ▪The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 23, 2026, that suspicion of criminal wrongdoing is sufficient for border agents to place green card holders on immigration parole
- ▪Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion that border officers do not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a crime involving moral turpitude
Muk Choi Lau case details
- ▪An immigration officer placed green card holder Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole in 2012 upon returning to the United States from China because Muk Choi Lau was accused of a counterfeiting crime
- ▪Muk Choi Lau pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey, which allowed the Department of Homeland Security under then-President Barack Obama to begin deportation proceedings
Trump administration deportation powers
- ▪The Trump administration's expanded policy allows for the expedited removal of non-citizens apprehended anywhere in the United States who cannot prove they have been in the country for two years
- ▪A federal appeals court panel ruled 2-1 on June 23, 2026, to allow the Trump administration to expand its fast-track deportation process nationwide
Due process concerns
- ▪Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent that the Supreme Court's ruling hands the government a massive blank check and leaves non-citizens in immigration limbo before a conviction
- ▪United States Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins dissented from the appeals court ruling, stating that subjecting migrants to fast-track deportation without asking how long they have lived in the United States is woefully inadequate
Green card holder legal protections
- ▪The advocacy group Alliance for Justice expressed concern that the Supreme Court ruling provides an expanded path for revoking green cards, while the group Advancing American Freedom applauded the decision
- ▪The Supreme Court is considering additional immigration cases regarding Donald Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, revive a restrictive asylum policy, and end temporary legal protections for migrants
Story comments
Loading comments…