Green-card holders at reentry: Blanche v. Lau

Status: Decided — Blanche v. Lau (No. 25-429)

Decided June 23, 2026 (6–3): when a returning lawful permanent resident is treated as seeking admission because of an alleged crime involving moral turpitude, the government need only show a "reason to believe" the offense occurred — not prove it by "clear and convincing evidence." This makes it easier for a border officer to deny readmission and place a returning green-card holder in removal proceedings.

Next step: The ruling is final. The practical change is at reentry: if you are a green-card holder with any criminal conviction, a pending charge, or an arrest in your history, consult an immigration attorney before international travel.

Verified against the primary source as of 2026-07-25 — status can change with a single court ruling. Official source.

What’s happening

On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Blanche v. Lau (No. 25-429) by a 6–3 vote. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, holding that a border officer does not need “clear and convincing evidence” that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a disqualifying crime before treating that person as seeking admission — a lower “reason to believe” threshold is enough. The Court reversed the Second Circuit, which had required the higher standard. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

The practical effect: it is now easier for the government to stop a returning green-card holder at the border, place them in “parole” rather than admit them, and refer them to removal proceedings — based on an allegation of a crime involving moral turpitude, without proving the underlying offense to a high standard.

Who it affects

Lawful permanent residents (green-card holders) who travel internationally and have a criminal conviction, a pending charge, or any alleged crime involving moral turpitude in their history. On return, a border officer may treat them as an applicant for admission and — under this ruling — needs only a “reason to believe” the offense occurred to deny admission and refer them to removal proceedings. Residents with a clean record returning from short trips are not affected by the change.

How it got here

  1. Jan 1, 2007 Muk Choi Lau, a citizen of China, becomes a U.S. lawful permanent resident.
  2. Jun 1, 2012 With a New Jersey trademark-counterfeiting charge pending, Lau travels abroad briefly; returning to JFK Airport, a border officer parolees him — treating him as an applicant for admission — rather than admitting him.
  3. Jun 23, 2026 The Supreme Court rules 6–3 (Justice Thomas writing) that the government need not show "clear and convincing evidence" that a returning resident committed a disqualifying crime before treating them as seeking admission; a lower "reason to believe" threshold suffices. The Court reverses the Second Circuit. Justice Jackson dissents, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

What to watch next

The ruling is final. The change shows up at the border, on reentry. If you are a green-card holder with any criminal history — including an old conviction, a dismissed or pending charge, or an arrest — the safe step is to talk to an immigration attorney before you travel internationally, so you understand how a border officer may treat your record on return. A licensed immigration attorney or DOJ-accredited representative can review your specific record.

Official sources

This page is general information about litigation, not legal advice. A case’s status can change with a single ruling, and outcomes can turn on facts specific to each person. For advice on a specific situation — especially before international travel with any criminal history — consult a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative.