Immigrant Rights Groups Condemn Supreme Court Decision Giving Border Agents Carte Blanche to Put Green Card Holders in Limbo When Returning from Trip Abroad

Contact

Sofia Costas scostas@advancingjustice-aajc.org

AALDEF Media media@aaldef.org

LatinoJustice, PRLDF media@latinojustice.org

Immigrant Defense Project media@immdefense.org

New York, NY – National immigrant rights groups that filed a “friend of the court” brief defending the rights of lawful permanent residents to retain their status if they are accused, but not convicted, of a crime, decried today’s Supreme Court decision that essentially gives border agents carte blanche to determine the status of lawful permanent residents when they reenter the U.S. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau holds that border officers are not required to have “clear and convincing evidence” that a lawful permanent resident (LPR) has committed a crime involving “moral turpitude” before determining that the LPR does not retain their right to re-enter the US upon returning from traveling abroad but instead must seek admission anew. 

Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), the Immigrant Defense Project and LatinoJustice PRLDEF filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, explaining that Congress has given LPRs an expectation that they are free to travel and then return home to their families, businesses, schools, and communities. Demoting a green card holder’s status to “seeking admission” and “temporary” has serious consequences, including making it more difficult for lawful permanent residents to work, attend school, open bank accounts or secure housing. 

The case involves a lawful permanent resident who was stopped at the border following a trip abroad and was not allowed admission as a green card holder based on a criminal case against him that was pending but not yet decided. Instead, officers “paroled” him into the U.S. Later, he was placed into removal proceedings after he pled guilty to trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey, a crime the court assumed for the sake of argument was a “crime involving moral turpitude.”  

Lau challenged the order of removal, arguing that at the time he re-entered the country, border agents should not have treated him as someone who was seeking a new admission into the U.S. based solely on unproven allegations against him. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit agreed with Lau and overruled rulings in earlier immigration court decisions. The Supreme Court decision rejected the Second Circuit court decision and sent the case back to the lower court. 

The groups in the amicus brief issued the following statements: 

Noah Baron, assistant director of litigation at Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC (Advancing Justice – AAJC), said:  

“Today's decision erodes the rule of law and weakens protections for lawful permanent residents—people who have built their lives, families, and futures here. Permanent residency status is supposed to provide stability and security for millions of immigrant families. With this decision, the Supreme Court has opened the door to even more discrimination against immigrants exercising their right to travel. Beyond that, even those who are not immigrants will feel the impact of this decision, because it weakens our system of checks and balances. AAJC remains committed to defending due process and ensuring that immigration laws are applied fairly and consistently.” 

“Millions of people carry a green card believing it means they are home for good,” said Razeen Zaman, director of the immigrant rights program at AALDEF. “Today, the Court ruled it means home until a border officer decides to lock the door, based on a charge or even an assumption, with no expectation to provide any proof. For Asian immigrants and other immigrants of color, who have been targets of exclusionary immigration and border policies since this country first wrote them into law, that danger is not theoretical. It invites border officers to act on their prejudices and assume that the government will conjure a justification after the fact. This ruling does not just permit racism at the border—it is an engine for it.” 

“Today’s Supreme Court decision gives free reign to the government to subject green card holders returning from travel abroad to detention and deportation based on unproven allegations that throws the basic tenets of due process on its head,” said Nabilah Siddiquee, Litigation Director at the Immigrant Defense Project. “To take the harms that Mr. Lau experienced and affirm them as permissible should alarm us all - it places millions of green card holders at risk.  The Immigrant Defense Project remains steadfast in fighting for the rights of green card holders to travel and to maintain family, cultural and religious ties abroad without fear of being targeted by the Department of Homeland Security upon mere suspicion of conduct. 

Lourdes M. Rosado, President and General Counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, said, “As Justice Jackson writes in her dissent, this misguided Supreme Court decision essentially hands a blank check to border officers who can presume anyone charged with a crime is already guilty, the opposite of our country’s legal principle that presumes innocence until proven guilty.  

“This ruling basically places 12.8 million permanent legal residents when they seek to reenter the country at the whim of border officers’ determination to downgrade their status, with next to no recourse to defend themselves from arbitrary changes in status.  

“With precedents in place in other cases that already give immigration officials broad discretion to target for extra scrutiny Latinos and others presumed to not have rights to live and work in the U.S., this decision only exacerbates the message that this administration looks on millions of people in our country as not belonging. LatinoJustice PRLDEF will continue to work to ensure all people in this country are treated with dignity and that their rights are protected.” 

###