Blanche v. Lau: What the Supreme Court's Ruling Means for Returning Green Card Holders

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Blanche v. Lau, a case about returning lawful permanent residents — green card holders — who have a criminal issue in their past. In short, the Court made it easier for the government to treat such a returning resident as an "applicant for admission" at the border, rather than as someone already admitted. Here is a plain-English look at what the decision says, what it does not, and why it matters before any international travel.

Two tracks: "inadmissibility" vs. "deportability"

Immigration law removes noncitizens along two different tracks. People who are treated as seeking admission to the country can be removed if they are "inadmissible." People who are already admitted can be removed if they are "deportable." The difference matters: the grounds, the timing rules, and the burdens are not the same. For example, an admitted resident is generally deportable for a crime involving moral turpitude only if it was committed within five years after admission, while an applicant for admission can be found inadmissible for such a crime committed at any time.

Normally, a green card holder returning from a temporary trip abroad is not treated as seeking admission — they are regarded as already admitted (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)). But there are exceptions. One of them applies when the resident "has committed" certain offenses, including a crime involving moral turpitude.

What happened in the case

Muk Choi Lau became a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2012, he was charged in New Jersey with trademark counterfeiting, then traveled abroad while the charge was pending. When he returned, a border officer did not treat him as already admitted; instead, the officer treated him as an applicant for admission and paroled him into the country (a way of allowing physical entry without a formal admission) while his criminal case played out. After Lau later pleaded guilty, the government placed him in removal proceedings, charging him as inadmissible. Lau argued he should have been treated as already admitted, and the Second Circuit agreed with him, holding that the government needed "clear and convincing evidence" at the border that he had committed the crime.

What the Court held

The Supreme Court reversed that approach. Writing for a six-Justice majority, Justice Thomas held that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have "clear and convincing evidence" that a permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an applicant for admission. The Court described a two-step structure:

• Step one — to regard a returning resident as "seeking admission," the government needs only that the person has committed a qualifying offense.
• Step two — to actually find that person inadmissible, a conviction (or admission of the conduct) is required.

The "clear and convincing evidence" burden that the Board of Immigration Appeals applies, the Court explained, comes into play at the removal hearing — not at the border. In Lau's case, the government met that burden at the hearing through his guilty plea. Three Justices dissented. Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, argued that the statute's text and structure require the government to determine that an exception actually applies before stripping a returning resident of "already admitted" status at the border.

What the Court did not decide

The decision is narrower than the headlines may suggest. The Court did not decide whether Lau's particular offense was a crime involving moral turpitude — it sent that question back to the lower court. And the majority expressly declined to resolve whether the government bears any burden at the border at all. In other words, important questions remain open, and outcomes will continue to depend on the specific offense and facts.

Why it matters — especially before travel

For green card holders, the practical lesson is about timing and travel. A past arrest, charge, or conviction can affect how you are treated when you return to the United States from a trip abroad — and after this decision, the government has more room to channel a returning resident with a criminal issue onto the inadmissibility track, which can mean parole, detention, or removal proceedings. That is why permanent residents with any criminal history are often advised to understand how their record may be classified before they leave the country, not after they have already returned.

The bottom line

If you are a lawful permanent resident and you have any arrest or conviction in your history — even an old one, and even one that did not lead to immigration trouble before — it is worth a case-specific conversation with an immigration attorney before international travel and before responding to any questions at the border. How a given offense is classified, and which track applies, depends on details that matter.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It summarizes a newly issued court decision; the slip opinion is subject to formal revision, and how the law applies depends on the specific facts of each case. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your situation. This website is attorney advertising.