Green cards could be revoked at any time under White House proposal

The Justice Department told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has the authority to reconsider and potentially revoke green card holders’ lawful permanent residency at any time.

Newsweek has contacted the DOJ for comment via email.

Why It Matters

If the court sides with the Trump administration’s position, the decision would effectively allow the government to revoke a green card years or even decades after it was issued. Critics warn this would erode due process. President Donald Trump pledged to deport millions of migrants without legal status. Trump has said that immigration enforcement would primarily focus on individuals with criminal records. However, recent reports have highlighted cases where people with valid documentation and no serious criminal history have been detained.

What To Know

During a Third Circuit hearing on Tuesday, the Justice Department argued that the attorney general holds broad authority to revisit and potentially revoke green card holders’ residency status at any time—a stance that, if upheld by the court, could have sweeping implications for millions of permanent residents in the United States.

This argument comes amid the ongoing case of Mohammad Qatanani, a Palestinian-born imam who has lived in New Jersey since 1996 and led one of the state’s largest mosques.

Qatanani has spent over two decades seeking permanent residency. His 1999 application was denied in 2006 after federal officials cited a 1993 Israeli detention and alleged ties to Hamas—allegations he denies, saying he was merely detained and mistreated.

Though immigration judges twice ruled in his favor, most recently in 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals later intervened, revoking his green card. Qatanani appealed the decision.

Justice Department attorney Lindsay Murphy argued that the immigration judge’s ruling in favor of Mohammad Qatanani was never finalized, citing missing procedural steps like assigning a visa number and updating biometric data. She also claimed that, finalized or not, the Board of Immigration Appeals had the authority to reopen the case at any time.

Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, questioned this interpretation of the board’s power, expressing skepticism during the hearing.

“Do you mean even 10, 20 years later?” Freeman questioned.

“The regulation doesn’t impose any time limit, so yes,” Murphy added. “But that certification requirement comes also with the requirement that there be exceptional circumstances.”

“The law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear. The Department of Homeland Security cannot unilaterally “revoke” a permanent resident’s status,” Amelia Wilson, Assistant Professor of Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, told Newsweek.

The agency is required to follow a formal process, which includes issuing a “Notice of Intent to Rescind” and giving the individual the right to a hearing before an immigration judge.

“During these proceedings, it is the government that bears the burden of proving by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the permanent resident should have their status taken away. At that point, it is the immigration judge—and only the immigration judge—who can effectively strip an individual of their green card,” Wilson said.

“The Trump administration’s proposal in front of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is not a new legislative measure but a reinterpretation of existing green card law, one that has the potential to fundamentally alter the legal rights of lawful permanent residents,” Bradford Bernstein, managing partner at Spar Bernstein, told Newsweek.

What People Are Saying

Wilson told Newsweek: “The Justice Department’s position before the Third Circuit is yet another attempt to terrorize immigrant communities. The Trump Administration is telling noncitizens that they are never safe from sudden detention and deportation, even after they have followed the law, and even after they have been granted permanent residence by our own government.”

Bernstein told Newsweek: “In this case, the government is arguing that it can revoke a green card years or even decades after it was granted, based solely on a claim that an immigration judge did not complete all the administrative steps required to finalize the grant of permanent residency. The immigrant involved was granted a green card by a judge, and the government failed to appeal within the standard 30-day window. Under well-established legal principles, that decision should be considered final. Yet the government now claims that because of a procedural oversight by the judge or the immigration service, it can still rescind the green card long after the fact.

“Accepting this argument would severely undermine the due process rights of permanent residents. It would create a dangerous precedent in which green cards could be retroactively revoked not because of fraud or misconduct by the immigrant, but due to clerical or procedural errors by the government itself. This would destabilize the very concept of lawful permanent residency, which is supposed to provide long-term security and a path toward citizenship.”

What Happens Next

If the Third Circuit sides with the government, the ruling would apply only within its jurisdiction—Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware—but it could trigger ripple effects. Immigrants in those states may face new legal risks or even consider moving to other jurisdictions.

If the case reaches the Supreme Court and the ruling is upheld, it could set a nationwide precedent affecting how permanent residency decisions are reviewed.