The Supreme Court sided 6-3 with the Trump administration on Tuesday in a green card case involving Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who returned from a short trip abroad before an immigration officer put him on immigration parole. The ruling gives immigration authorities the upper hand in this dispute over what officers may do when a green-card holder comes back to the United States.
The case centered on a 2012 decision involving Lau after he returned from that trip. He said the officer overstepped authority, while the Trump administration argued that suspicion of a crime is enough to place a lawful permanent resident on immigration parole.
Muk Choi Lau and 2012
Lau said the decision wrongly allowed the Department of Homeland Security to swiftly begin deportation proceedings after he pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting. His challenge focused on the officer’s power at the border and whether that authority extended far enough to trigger the later proceedings.
The court’s ruling leaves that government authority in place in this case. For other lawful permanent residents, the practical issue is whether a return from travel can expose them to immigration parole if an officer suspects a crime.
Trump administration position
Federal attorneys urged the court to take an expansive view of executive authority over immigration. The justices accepted that position in the 6-3 ruling, siding with the Trump administration rather than Lau’s view that the officer went beyond the proper role.
The case began before Donald Trump took office, but it comes as the Supreme Court is also considering other immigration-related issues involving Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship, potentially revive a restrictive asylum policy, and end temporary legal protections for migrants fleeing war and natural disasters in their homelands.
What remains with the court
The decision answers the dispute over Muk Choi Lau’s parole placement, but the source does not spell out any further proceedings in his case. What the court used as its exact reasoning to uphold the government’s authority is also not explained here, leaving the ruling’s broader line-drawing to be read from the opinion itself.
