Supreme Court to Decide if Green Card Holders Can Be Deported for Alleged Crimes

The case centers on a Chinese national who was paroled at the border after being accused of counterfeiting, raising questions about the rights of lawful permanent residents.

Apr. 19, 2026 at 10:05pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

An extreme close-up of a green card document partially obscured by shadows, conceptually illustrating the legal complexities surrounding the rights of lawful permanent residents.The Supreme Court will determine the rights of lawful permanent residents accused of crimes, with implications for how easily the government can move to deport green card holders.NYC Today

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in a case that will determine whether immigration officials need clear evidence of a crime to treat returning green card holders as seeking admission to the U.S. The case involves Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who became a lawful permanent resident in 2007 but was paroled at the border in 2012 after being accused of selling counterfeit goods. Lau challenged his potential removal, arguing he was improperly classified, and the 2nd Circuit agreed, holding that immigration officers needed 'clear and convincing evidence' of a disqualifying crime to deny him admission. The government is now asking the Supreme Court to review that ruling.

Why it matters

The case highlights the complex legal issues surrounding the rights of lawful permanent residents who are accused of crimes. It will determine the standard of proof immigration officials must meet to treat these residents as seeking admission, rather than as having a right to reenter the country. The outcome could impact how easily the government can move to deport green card holders based on alleged criminal activity.

The details

In May 2012, Lau was arrested and charged in New Jersey for allegedly selling nearly $300,000 worth of counterfeit Coogi shorts. While awaiting trial, he left the U.S. but returned in June 2012, where he encountered immigration officers at JFK Airport in New York. Immigration officials determined Lau was subject to the 'moral turpitude' exception that allows them to treat lawful permanent residents as seeking admission if they have committed certain crimes. They paroled Lau, allowing him to temporarily enter but deferring a decision on his eligibility for admission. Lau later pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting and was convicted. The government then sought to remove him from the country, arguing he was ineligible for admission.

  • In May 2012, Lau was arrested and charged in New Jersey.
  • In June 2012, Lau returned to the U.S. and was paroled by immigration officials at JFK Airport.
  • In June 2013, Lau pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting and was convicted.
  • In March 2014, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Lau.
  • On April 19, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Blanche v. Lau.

The players

Muk Choi Lau

A Chinese national who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2007 and is challenging his potential removal from the country after being accused of selling counterfeit goods.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer

The government's lead attorney arguing that immigration officials do not need 'clear and convincing evidence' of a crime to treat lawful permanent residents as seeking admission at the border.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

The federal appeals court that ruled in Lau's favor, holding that immigration officials needed 'clear and convincing evidence' of a disqualifying crime to deny Lau admission to the country.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“'Critically, the INA does not provide that [a lawful permanent resident] may be treated as seeking admission when, as in Lau's case, he has been 'charged with a crime' or is 'believed to have committed a crime.''”

— Judge Richard J. Sullivan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

“'If federal officials could assess criminal history at the border in the era of wooden ships and oil lamps, it's hard to believe that DHS officials can't do so today.'”

— Muk Choi Lau

What’s next

The Supreme Court's decision in Blanche v. Lau is expected by early July 2026.

The takeaway

This case will have significant implications for the rights of lawful permanent residents who are accused of crimes, determining the standard of proof immigration officials must meet to treat these residents as seeking admission rather than having a right to reenter the country. The outcome could impact how easily the government can move to deport green card holders based on alleged criminal activity.