{"id":635,"date":"2026-06-24T17:00:03","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T17:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usstatebenefits.com\/blog\/supreme-court-strikes-blow-to-lawful-permanent-residents\/"},"modified":"2026-06-24T17:00:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-24T17:00:03","slug":"supreme-court-strikes-blow-to-lawful-permanent-residents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usstatebenefits.com\/blog\/supreme-court-strikes-blow-to-lawful-permanent-residents\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Strikes Blow to Lawful Permanent Residents"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court Strikes Blow to Lawful Permanent Residents<\/p>\n

06\/23\/2026<\/p>\n

ddelacruz
\nTue, 06\/23\/2026 – 12:21<\/p>\n

(Washington)–The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) denounced a ruling handed down today by the conservative Supreme Court justices that gives immigration officers more power to remove lawful permanent residents from the U.S., making it easier to deport people. The case is Blanche v. Lau.
\nThe justices voted 6-3 against Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Muk Choi Lau, who had been charged in New Jersey with trademark counterfeiting. While that charge was pending, Lau traveled abroad. Upon returning to the U.S. through JFK Airport, immigration officials ran a background check, saw the pending charge, and paroled Lau into the U.S. to face the criminal charges, instead of granting him a normal LPR entry.
\nThe Supreme Court ruled against Lau in this case, ignoring the presumption held sacred in our criminal legal system that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The Court vacated a 2025 Second Circuit of Appeals decision which held that Lau\u2019s pending criminal charge did not \u201cconstitute clear and convincing evidence\u201d he had committed a crime when he re-entered the country, and such evidence was necessary to charge an LPR in removal proceedings. The Supreme Court said that clear and convincing evidence is not necessary to justify a conclusion by border officials that an LPR has committed a crime for which they have not been convicted.
\nLau eventually pled guilty for the crime with which he was charged, after which the government charged him in removal proceedings as an LPR who had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before he traveled abroad. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the crime Lau pled guilty to is one of moral turpitude and sent the case back to the Second Circuit for further consideration on that question.
\nThis ruling empowers the government to presume guilt and use it to strip LPRs of their rights. It also places many LPRs with unproven criminal allegations against them in a state of limbo, not having the ability to safely travel or apply for benefits such as naturalization. LPRs should seek legal counsel before traveling outside the United States if they have pending criminal charges, even if untrue, since this new ruling by the Court gives immigration officers permission to deny LPRs a normal entry based on flimsy evidence that a crime has been \u201ccommitted,\u201d even though a criminal court has not made a decision regarding the person\u2019s guilt.<\/p>\n

Key Highlights<\/h2>\n