On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant immigration decision in Blanche v. Lau, holding that border officers do not need clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident (LPR) committed a disqualifying crime before treating that individual as an applicant for admission upon reentry to the United States.
The 6-3 decision strengthens the government’s authority to scrutinize returning green card holders with pending criminal issues and may make it easier for DHS to pursue removal on inadmissibility grounds rather than deportability grounds.
Background
In this case, Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident, was paroled into the U.S. while facing criminal charges, and was later convicted of trademark counterfeiting.
- The government then tried to deport him, arguing he had been inadmissible at the time of his reentry.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that he should not have been paroled into the U.S. in the first place, but rather allowed normal reentry.
- The Court’s decision threw out the Second Circuit’s ruling.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The primary question before the Court was whether a border officer must possess clear and convincing evidence that an LPR committed a qualifying crime before classifying the individual as an applicant for admission upon reentry.
The Supreme Court rejected that requirement.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that nothing in the INA imposes a burden requiring border officers to establish by clear and convincing evidence at the border that an LPR committed a crime involving moral turpitude.
The Court emphasized that the statute creates a two-step process:
- DHS may treat an LPR as seeking admission if the person has committed a qualifying offense.
- DHS may subsequently establish inadmissibility during removal proceedings based on a conviction or admission relating to that offense.
According to the Court, the government satisfied its burden during Lau’s removal proceedings because his guilty plea constituted clear and convincing evidence that he had committed the offense before attempting to reenter the United States.
Impact on Green Card Holders
The ruling has important implications for lawful permanent residents who travel internationally while facing criminal charges or potential criminal exposure.
Under the Court’s interpretation:
- DHS may classify certain returning green card holders as applicants for admission before a criminal conviction has been entered.
- Border officers are not required to possess clear and convincing evidence at the time of inspection.
- Criminal convictions obtained after reentry may later be used to support inadmissibility charges in removal proceedings.
The decision gives DHS greater flexibility in handling returning permanent residents whose conduct may fall within the criminal grounds of inadmissibility.
Erickson Insights and Analysis
Erickson Immigration Group will continue monitoring developments and sharing updates as more news is available. Please contact your employer or EIG attorney if you have questions about anything we’re reporting above or if you have case-specific questions.