In a ruling tied to a broad Supreme Court focus on immigration under the current administration, the court held that suspicion of a crime can justify parole for green-card holders, even when the crime’s conviction is not yet established.

The decision centers on Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who was paroled during a 2012 trip to China amid counterfeiting allegations, a move that set up swift deportation proceedings after Lau pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, saying border officers did not carry a high evidentiary burden to justify parole in this context.

Copyright 2026 The Associated Press.

At the admissibility step, Lau was treated as an alien seeking admission for a crime involving moral turpitude; at the second step, he faced potential inadmissibility and removability if CIMT grounds applied.

The ruling shifts returning residents with open cases toward being treated as basic applicants for admission, reducing the presumption of valid admission until conviction.

The INA permits charging an applicant with inadmissibility and paroling them even if CIMT is not proven with clear and convincing evidence at entry.

The ruling could widen pathways to initiate removal proceedings against some lawful permanent residents before criminal convictions, drawing praise from immigration advocates and concern from critics.

Supporters say the decision adds flexibility to enforce federal immigration laws, while critics warn it may erode safeguards for LPRs awaiting criminal outcomes.

The Court remanded to the Second Circuit to consider Lau’s argument that his crime may not have involved moral turpitude, leaving the CIMT question unresolved.

Immigration groups warn the decision could enable deportations based on unverified local reports and affect thousands of green-card holders at entry points.