US Supreme Court makes it easier to deport Green Card holders: What does it mean for Indians? | WION Horizons

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (Jun 23) handed the federal government broader powers to deny entry and deport green card holders accused of certain crimes. The court ruled that immigration officials do not have to meet a higher standard of proof when deciding whether a returning lawful permanent resident should be treated as someone seeking admission to the country. The ruling could have major implications for lawful permanent residents, including thousands of Indians living in the United States. It could affect about 6.7 million Indians who were in the US as of January 2026.

What did the Supreme Court rule?

In a 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, the court ruled that immigration authorities do not need to conclusively prove, using "clear and convincing evidence" that a returning Green Card holder committed a disqualifying crime before treating them as someone seeking admission into the country. Instead, border officials only need a "reason to believe" that the person may have committed a crime involving what US immigration law calls "moral turpitude".

"The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," Thomas wrote in the majority opinion issued following the ruling.

The ruling effectively lowers the burden on immigration authorities when deciding whether a returning permanent resident should be allowed back into the country.

So what exactly has changed? WION Decodes below.

What is a "crime involving moral turpitude"?

The phrase has long existed in US immigration law but remains broadly defined.

According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), US immigration law uses the term "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT) to describe offences considered inherently dishonest, immoral, or harmful. However, notably, there is no single, universally accepted definition.

Traditionally, US immigration authorities and courts have treated crimes involving fraud, theft, forgery, serious assault, and offences involving an intent to cause significant bodily harm as CIMTs. Some crimes involving recklessness, malicious conduct, or sexual offences committed with lewd intent can also fall under the category.

According to immigration guidance, authorities generally look for factors such as:

Blanche v. Lau: What was the case about?

The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and Green Card holder, who was stopped at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 while returning from China. At the time, Lau was facing trademark counterfeiting charges in New Jersey. He was eventually allowed to be conditionally readmitted. Lau was later convicted, and immigration authorities sought to deport him.

However, Lau continues to argue that the offence did not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude and challenged the government's actions. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with immigration authorities.

Why does this matter for Indians?

Indians make up one of the largest immigrant communities in the United States.

According to India's Ministry of External Affairs, around 6.7 million people of Indian origin and Indian citizens were living in the US as of January 2026. That includes roughly 3.77 million people of Indian origin and 2.31 million Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).

Data from the US Office of Homeland Security Statistics shows that 66,800 Indians received Green Cards in 2024, making India one of the largest sources of new lawful permanent residents.

What are critics saying?

The court's three liberal justices dissented. In a dissent note, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the decision gives the government excessive power and weakens protections traditionally available to Green Card holders.

"I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," she wrote.

She further noted that "With today's decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of 'seeking admission' upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the law."

Critics argue that lawful permanent residents, many of whom have lived and worked in the US for years, could now face greater uncertainty when travelling abroad if they have unresolved criminal allegations or past convictions.

Does this mean Indians and other immigrants can be automatically deported from the US?

No, the ruling does not mean Green Card holders can be deported automatically. However, it does make it easier for immigration authorities to deny entry and to strip lawful permanent resident (LPR) status from people as they arrive at U.S. ports of entry if and when criminal concerns arise.