The Justice Department has suggested that Attorney General Pam Bondi has the authority to revoke green cards as she sees fit.
DOJ attorney Lindsay Murphy posited Bondi's alleged power during a Third Circuit hearing in Philadelphia. If the court sides with the Trump administration’s position, it could jeopardize the lawful residency status of the U.S.’s estimated 12.8 million green card holders.
Murphy suggested that the attorney general has full discretion to revoke the permits at any time for any reason, even for legal permanent residents who had lived in the U.S. for decades. People with green cards can live and work in the U.S., receive Social Security, Medicare and financial aid for college and serve in the military.
It comes as Donald Trump continues to ramp up his immigration crackdown, pledging to deport millions of migrants who don’t have the right documentation and fueling concerns for those who do. The president has ordered DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to add 20,000 officers to enforce his deportation policies, and her agency is reportedly considering a TV show that would see migrants competing for citizenship and offering $1,000 incentives to immigrants who self-deport.
Murphy made her argument during Tuesday’s hearing, according to Newsweek, which focused on an ongoing case involving Mohammad Qatanani, the Palestinian-born imam who has lived in New Jersey since 1996.
Qatanani has been seeking permanent residency in the U.S. and fought off deportation for decades amid government accusations that he is linked to the Palestinian terrorist organization, Hamas, which he denies. He was granted permanent residency in 2008 after an immigration judge ruled against his deportation, which the government appealed.
The immigration judge ruled in favor of Qatanani in 2020 but a year later, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which sits within the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, reversed the ruling through initiating certification, ultimately rescinding the religious leader’s green card.
Murphy was pressed on whether there was a timeframe for certification, with U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman asking: “Do you mean even 10, 20 years later?”
“The regulation doesn’t impose any time limit, so yes,” Murphy added, before adding that it would require “exceptional circumstances.”
Probed on what qualifies as an exceptional circumstance, Murphy told the panel that the attorney general has full authority to make that determination.
“That’s an extraordinary position for the government to be taking, don’t you think?,” Freeman added.
