On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Blanche v. Lau that every green card holder who travels internationally needs to be aware of. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that border agents do not need clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime before denying them re-entry into the United States. A pending criminal charge may now be sufficient for CBP to treat a returning lawful permanent resident as seeking admission parole the individual into the United States rather than formally admit them,, and initiate removal proceedings even though the government may not yet possess clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of entry.
What Happened in This Case
The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who was charged with trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey in 2012. While those charges were still pending – and before he had been convicted of anything – he traveled briefly abroad. When he returned to JFK International Airport, CBP officers paroled him rather than admitting him as a returning resident, and confiscated his green card based solely on the existence of the pending charge.
Lau later pleaded guilty and was ordered deported. He challenged the removal, arguing that the government needed clear and convincing evidence of the crime at the moment of his re-entry – not just an unresolved charge. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, siding with the government and ruling that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) imposes no such evidentiary requirement on border officers at the port of entry.
What the Ruling Actually Changed
Under the prior framework, green card holders returning from short trips abroad were generally treated as already admitted to the United States. The government could only remove them through the deportability track – a process that places the burden of proof on the government and carries stronger procedural protections for the resident.
Under Blanche v. Lau, a CBP officer can now reclassify a returning green card holder as someone “seeking admission” – without possessing clear and convincing evidence at the time of inspection, e – and place them on parole. Once on the inadmissibility track, the burden shifts to the green card holder to defeat the charge in removal proceedings. That is a significantly harder position to defend from than a standard deportation case.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing in dissent and joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, warned that the decision hands the government a broad and largely unchecked tool at the border. In her words, it allows the government to strip a green card holder of their returning resident status first, and justify that decision later.
What Is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude?
The ruling applies specifically to the exception in INA §101(a)(13)(C)(v), which allows the government to treat a returning LPR as seeking admission if they have committed a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). This is a broad category under immigration law that generally includes offenses involving fraud, theft, dishonesty, and certain crimes against persons. What qualifies as a CIMT is determined on a case-by-case basis and is not always obvious – and critically, the Supreme Court in this case declined to decide whether trademark counterfeiting itself even qualifies, leaving that question for the lower court on remand.
This matters because the category is wider than most people expect. Offenses that may seem minor under criminal law can carry serious immigration consequences when evaluated under the CIMT standard.
Why This Matters for Green Card Holders
This ruling raises the stakes for any lawful permanent resident who travels internationally and has any of the following in their background:
- A pending criminal charge, even if there has been no conviction.
- A prior conviction that could qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), including many offenses involving fraud, theft, or dishonesty.
- A criminal history that may prompt additional scrutiny by CBP, although an arrest alone does not establish inadmissibility.
The bottom line is that a green card is no longer the ironclad protection it once was at the port of entry. A DUI, a fraud-related matter, or even an old charge that was never prosecuted could now create a serious risk at re-entry. If there is anything in your background that could raise a red flag with a CBP officer, do not travel internationally without first speaking to an immigration attorney.
If CBP places you on parole rather than admitting you at the border, contact an immigration lawyer immediately. Your green card status is not finally lost at that point, but the removal proceedings that follow are significantly more difficult to defend than a standard deportation case.
Schedule a Consultation with an Immigration Lawyer
Sources
- Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, No. 25-429, 609 U.S. ___ (June 23, 2026)
- INA § 101(a)(13)(C) – Definition of Admission for Lawful Permanent Residents
- ABC News – Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Border Agents to Deport Green Card Holders
We Can Help!
If you have questions about U.S. Immigration, we invite you to contact Richards and Jurusik for trusted guidance and assistance. At Richards and Jurusik, we have attorneys licensed in both the U.S. and Canada, giving our clients a significant advantage for U.S. immigration matters. Our team has decades of experience helping individuals work, live, and travel across North America. Please read some of our hundreds of 5-star client reviews! Contact us today to assess your legal situation.
REBECCA KROLL is an Associate Attorney at Richards and Jurusik who practices exclusively in U.S. immigration law, focusing on both business and family-based immigration. She assists clients with employment-based visas, marriage and family cases, and the U.S. citizenship process. (Full Bio)
