Justice Department asserts sweeping authority over permanent residency status
In a move that could dramatically impact millions of legal immigrants across the United States, the Justice Department has recently argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that Attorney General Pam Bondi possesses the authority to reconsider and potentially revoke green cards at any point after they’ve been issued, with no statute of limitations.
This extraordinary claim emerged during appellate proceedings, where Justice Department attorneys maintained that the government retains the power to strip lawful permanent residents of their status regardless of how much time has passed since their green cards were approved.
If the court ultimately supports the Trump administration’s position, the ruling could allow officials to revoke a person’s permanent residency many years after it was granted, potentially eroding fundamental due process protections that immigrants have historically relied upon.
Expanded deportation powers raise constitutional concerns
Since returning to the office in January, President Donald Trump has renewed his pledge to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants, with particular emphasis on those with criminal histories. However, according to reporting from Newsweek, even individuals with valid documentation and clean records have found themselves caught in enforcement actions.
The Justice Department’s assertion of unlimited authority to revisit green card approvals represents a significant expansion of the administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, potentially affecting the security and stability of millions of permanent residents currently living in the United States.
Palestinian imam’s two-decade legal battle highlights policy implications
The government’s argument comes amid the ongoing case of Mohammad Qatanani, a Palestinian-born imam who has lived in New Jersey since 1996 and leads one of the state’s largest mosques. For over twenty years, Qatanani has fought to secure permanent residency, but his application, originally filed in 1999, was denied in 2006.
Federal officials cited a 1993 Israeli detention and alleged ties to Hamas as grounds for denial—allegations Qatanani has consistently denied, maintaining he was simply detained and mistreated.
Despite immigration judges ruling twice in Qatanani’s favor, the Board of Immigration Appeals intervened and revoked his green card, prompting his current appeal.
“No time limit” claim draws judicial skepticism
During recent Third Circuit proceedings, Justice Department attorney Lindsay Murphy argued that regardless of whether immigration judges’ rulings favoring Qatanani were finalized, the Board of Immigration Appeals maintained authority to reopen his case indefinitely.
This assertion prompted visible skepticism from Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, who questioned, “Do you mean even 10, 20 years later?”
“The regulation doesn’t impose any time limit, so yes,” Murphy responded. “But that certification requirement comes also with the requirement that there be exceptional circumstances.”
Legal experts challenge administration’s interpretation
Immigration law specialists have pushed back against the Justice Department’s characterization of its authority, arguing that established procedures must be followed before permanent residency can be revoked.
“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 at Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, told Newsweek.
Wilson emphasized that the government must adhere to a formal process, including issuing a “Notice of Intent to Rescind” and guaranteeing the individual’s 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.
Bradford Bernstein, managing partner at Spar Bernstein, noted the far-reaching implications of the administration’s position: “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.”
As the Third Circuit deliberates on this case, millions of green card holders across the country await a decision that could profoundly affect their security and status in America, potentially transforming what was once considered a stable immigration status into a perpetually provisional one subject to revocation at any time.
