Supreme Court considers if green card holders lose rights when they travel abroad

The returning resident presumption under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C) states that a lawful permanent resident returning from abroad is presumed to be coming home rather than seeking new admission. An LPR can lose this presumption only if they committed certain criminal offenses, abandoned U.S. domicile, or stayed abroad more than 180 days. The government argued that it can override that presumption based on a pending charge alone, at any point in removal proceedings.

Muk Choi Lau became a lawful permanent resident in 2007 and built his life in the United States. In May 2012, he was charged in New Jersey with third-degree trademark counterfeiting involving roughly $282,240 worth of counterfeit-mark apparel. While awaiting trial, he traveled abroad briefly. On June 15, 2012, he returned through JFK Airport, presenting himself as a returning resident. Rather than admitting him, immigration officials paroled him for deferred inspection because of his pending charge.

The Second Circuit ruled in Lau's favor in a decision reported at 130 F.4th 42. Circuit Judge Richard J. Sullivan held that DHS erred in treating Lau as an applicant for admission based solely on a pending charge without clear and convincing evidence of the disqualifying crime. The court vacated the removal order and terminated the inadmissibility case, creating a circuit split that brought the question to the Supreme Court.

The legal stakes extend far beyond Muk Choi Lau. Legal advocates estimate this affects 12.8 million people who hold green cards and travel internationally for work, family emergencies, or other reasons. Under the government's reading of the law, any green card holder with a pending charge — even a minor civil or criminal matter — could be paroled instead of admitted on any international trip.

The case arrived as the Trump administration has dramatically expanded the use of parole powers to detain immigrants. In 2026, the administration revoked roughly 900,000 CBP One parole grants for migrants who had been allowed to enter the U.S. under the Biden administration's program. The same legal argument could apply to long-established green card holders if the Court rules for the government.

The government also raised a jurisdictional argument before the Court, asserting that federal courts should not review DHS's discretionary parole decisions at all. If the Court accepted this position, it would limit judicial oversight of how immigration officials treat returning residents at ports of entry nationwide.

A ruling in the government's favor would eliminate a legal protection that Congress specifically wrote into the INA. The 1996 immigration law amendments created § 1101(a)(13)(C) to protect LPRs from the harsher treatment historically applied to returning residents, reflecting a congressional judgment that those who have built lives in the United States deserve stronger procedural protections.

A ruling for Lau would preserve the requirement that the government establish a statutory exception with clear and convincing evidence at the port of entry before paroling an LPR. The decision will likely arrive in June 2026, during the peak of the Supreme Court's end-of-term opinion releases.