Two recent legal battles involving the potential deportation of legal permanent residents, commonly known as green card holders, have reignited discussions around their constitutional protections.
On March 26, a federal judge temporarily halted the arrest and deportation of Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old student at Columbia University. The Department of Homeland Security was moving to deport Chung for her involvement in a protest connected to the university’s disciplinary actions against students participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald issued a temporary restraining order that prevented federal authorities from detaining Chung while her immigration proceedings continued. Just two days earlier, Chung had filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and several administration officials. Her legal complaint contended that, as a green card holder, her constitutional rights—especially those under the First Amendment—had been infringed upon.
According to Chung’s lawsuit, she had taken part in a campus protest on March 5 and was subsequently cited by New York City police for obstructing governmental administration. On March 8, her legal team was informed by a federal law enforcement officer that her permanent resident status was being rescinded.
Chung’s lawyers highlighted a similar case involving Mahmoud Khalil, another Columbia University student with legal permanent residency, who was removed from campus housing and sent to a detention facility in Louisiana. Federal agents allegedly informed Khalil that his green card had been revoked by the State Department.
In legal documents, the government argued that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had the authority to revoke Khalil’s permanent residency based on concerns that his “presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States,” citing a section of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.
Khalil’s legal status is now under review in a federal court in New Jersey. The government maintains that Khalil failed todisclose critical information in his green card application, which could justify the revocation of his permanent resident status.
Green card holders, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, possess a set of fundamental rights and obligations. These include the right to live indefinitely in the U.S., as long as they do not engage in conduct that renders them deportable under immigration law. They are also entitled to seek employment in their field and receive protection under federal, state, and local laws.
However, green card holders must also meet specific responsibilities. They are required to obey all U.S. laws, file income tax returns with both federal and state tax authorities, and, for males between 18 and 25, register with the Selective Service. They are also expected to support democratic governance, though this does not grant them voting rights in federal, state, or local elections.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that legal permanent residents enjoy most constitutional protections granted to U.S. citizens. In the 1945 case Bridges v. Wixon, the Court determined that Harry Bridges, an Australian who had resided in the United States since 1920, could not be deported solely for his political affiliations with the Communist Party.
Justice Frank Murphy, in his concurring opinion, emphasized that “once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country, he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.” He further elaborated, “Such rights include those protected by the First and Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinctions between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all ‘persons’ and guard against any encroachment of those rights by federal or state authority.”
A subsequent ruling in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding (1953) involved a merchant sailor and legal permanent resident who was denied reentry into the U.S. after a four-month trip abroad on the grounds that his return posed a risk to public interest. The government detained Chew and did not disclose the allegations against him. Justice Harold Burton stated, “It is well established that, if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. He may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
In the 1976 case Mathews v. Diaz, Justice John Paul Stevens further clarified that constitutional protections apply broadly: “There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
Among the most vital constitutional rights afforded to green card holders is the right to apply for U.S. citizenship through naturalization, typically after five years of continuous residence. To qualify, applicants must show “good moral character,” demonstrate a commitment to the Constitution, read and write basic English, and possess a general understanding of U.S. history and government. They must also take an Oath of Allegiance to the country.
Naturalized citizens are largely shielded from legal vulnerabilities that could result in deportation for green card holders—unless it is later discovered that they used false information during the naturalization process.
Nonetheless, the general rule remains that green card holders must adhere to all laws at the federal, state, and local levels. If found to have broken the law, they may face deportation through the immigration court system, managed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review under the U.S. Department of Justice. The government is required to provide compelling evidence to strip a person of their permanent residency.
Should an immigration judge order removal, the green card holder has the right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and, if necessary, escalate the case to a Federal Court of Appeals.
The legal battles involving Chung and Khalil are emblematic of the broader tension between national security, free speech, and immigrant rights. As these cases unfold in the courts, they may help to clarify the extent to which constitutional protections apply to green card holders, especially in the politically sensitive context of protests and foreign policy concerns.