Not surprisingly, it was a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court, with the usual suspects dissenting. In a decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, SCOTUS held that immigration officials do not need to present "clear and convincing evidence" that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime before treating the applicant for admission. The decision makes it much easier for the government to block or deport green card holders at the border if they have a reasonable suspicion that the green card holder committed a serious crime while abroad.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court just ruled 6-3 that green card holders can be STRIPPED of their legal status if they have pending criminal charges when trying to re-enter the country.
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 23, 2026
The three liberal judges dissented. pic.twitter.com/0oT99nGP7O
The outcome favors enforcement flexibility over extra procedural safeguards at re-entry. Good call.
— Citizen (@Bmilhouse) June 23, 2026
According to Newsweek, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a "scathing" dissent:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the federal government can strip returning green card holders of their standard legal status if they travel abroad while facing pending, unproven criminal allegations.
The decision drew a scathing dissent from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who accused the conservative majority of bypassing explicit limits set by Congress and handing the executive branch a dangerous "blank check" to upend the lives of millions of permanent residents.
…
The ruling in Blanche v. Lau marks a sweeping victory for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, which had actively urged the high court to take an expansive view of executive power. Green card holders are now forced to prove they are legally entitled to remain in the U.S., rather than requiring the government to prove they should be removed.
Recommended
The Democrats need their own country. They can let in whatever criminals they like. They can have Socialism, Communism, Naziism, whatever they like. But they need to do it somewhere else.
— Nick Danger (@regnad_kcinn) June 23, 2026
Oh look. The DEI brigade votes against America. Again!
— WoodyTrucker_v2 (@WoodyTrucker_v2) June 23, 2026
Yup, I think KJB is my favorite justice. She’s not a biologist and if you’re siding with her it really makes you want to rethink your position.
— Charlie 🇺🇸 (@charliehummer4) June 23, 2026
She will be one of the most famous justices ever because of her sheer incompetence.
Liberal judges love criminals and hate victims.
— Basik (@TheRealBasik) June 23, 2026
You just have to wonder what possibly goes through their heads to make them vote against this so logical and common sense approach.
— Betty Crocker (@BettysNoCrock) June 23, 2026
I bet their legal arguments for their opinion is hilarious. I have to find it.
— dan (@dan16191927) June 23, 2026
Oh course they dissented 🤦🏼♀️ Let the criminals in is their mantra
— Monica1776 (@ATX1776) June 23, 2026
Pro criminal is no way to go through life.
— David F. Baskwill (@dfbaskwill) June 23, 2026
What is up with this liberal obsession with importing criminals ?
— Jake (@mediachecker) June 23, 2026
Hard to believe this is something up for debate
— Big Sauce (@BigSauceGuy) June 23, 2026
If you're a guest in someone's country and commit crimes then you have lost your privilege to be there
The SCOTUS women want to keep criminal foreigners in your city living among you and preying on your citizens.
— Lisa P (@LisaP2345) June 23, 2026
You can always guess where these three nutcases will come down on an decision by asking yourself what would be bad for America.
— Anthony Galli (@AnthonyGalli) June 23, 2026
The decision simply lowers the bar from "clear and convincing evidence" to reasonable suspicion. If you haven't committed a crime, there's no problem.
***