What legal remedies exist for green card holders facing deportation, and how have courts treated them during 2025–2026?

1. What remedies exist on paper: the statutory and constitutional toolbox

Lawful permanent residents (LPRs) are removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act for a range of criminal and immigration violations, and the statute (including INA §237) provides the basic framework for removal proceedings and defenses; many legal guides and firms summarize these grounds and the availability of statutory defenses or relief depending on the case facts ^{[6] [2] [7]}. Critically, green card holders generally have the right to “plead their case in court,” meaning an opportunity in immigration court to contest deportability or seek forms of relief, and they also possess many of the constitutional protections that apply to other residents, as reflected in longstanding case law cited by legal commentators ^{[1] [5]}.

2. How those remedies work in practice: procedures, delay, and detention

In practice the pathway from Notice to Appear to final decision can be lengthy and is often experienced alongside detention; reporting on high-profile cases from 2025 shows LPRs being held in ICE facilities while proceedings move forward and underscores that the government must show proof to justify removal though the process can be protracted ^[1]. Concurrent administrative changes — including new registration rules and biometric entry-exit systems — and policy shifts that expand referrals from USCIS to ICE increase the point of contact where green card holders may be placed into proceedings ^{[3] [8] [9]}.

3. The role of criminal convictions and other common hooks for removal

A dominant theme in the sources is that criminal convictions remain a primary trigger for deportation: aggravated felonies, crimes of moral turpitude, certain drug offenses and even older convictions can render an LPR removable under current interpretations and enforcement priorities ^{[6] [2] [7]}. Several legal outlets warn that sentences of a year or more, or convictions within early years after getting status, are especially risky, and counsel from immigration firms stresses immediate legal review when criminal exposure exists — an advice cadence that also reflects firms’ client-service roles ^{[7] [2]}.

4. How courts treated green card defense in 2025–2026: mixed decisions and high-profile injunctions

Federal courts in 2025–2026 produced a mixed record: judges have used injunctions and temporary restraining orders to block specific arrests or deportations, as illustrated by a reported TRO preventing the arrest and deportation of a 21‑year‑old Columbia student in March 2026 workups cited by legal commentators ^[5], while at the same time higher courts allowed major administrative moves — such as permitting the government to end certain parole programs and thereby exposing people to detention or removal — signaling judicial deference to some executive policy changes ^[3]. Media reporting also shows courts confronting constitutional claims by LPRs while other cases proceed with long detentions, indicating that relief is highly case-specific and shaped by the interplay of court discretion, statutory text and policy context ^{[1] [5] [3]}.

5. The political and advocacy layer: incentives, warnings and uneven narratives

Immigrant-rights organizations and legal aid groups have urged green card holders to learn the law, make safety plans and seek counsel in response to expanded enforcement priorities, framing the situation as urgent and policy-driven ^[4]. By contrast, law firms and immigration defenders emphasize individual defense strategies and advertise consultations — a useful resource but one with commercial incentives that should be weighed when evaluating guidance ^{[2] [10]}. Journalistic and legal reporting also highlights less-common removal grounds, such as foreign-policy-based determinations by the Secretary of State, that complicate the landscape and suggest avenues of removal beyond standard criminal or immigration violations ^[11].

Bottom line

Statutory remedies and constitutional protections exist for green card holders, most centrally the right to contest removal in immigration court, but real-world outcomes in 2025–2026 have depended on changing administrative rules, enforcement priorities that heighten referrals to ICE, and a court system that sometimes blocks individual deportations while at other times upholding broad executive actions — making prompt legal advice and case-by-case advocacy essential ^{[1] [3] [5]}.