Supreme Court Eases Rules for Removing Green Card Holders at Border
The Supreme Court ruled that border officers need less proof to treat green card holders as applicants for admission.
Why it matters: This decision affects how immigration officials handle lawful permanent residents with criminal charges and shapes legal strategies for immigration law practitioners and corporate counsel managing employee immigration risks.
- The 6-3 ruling in Blanche v. Lau lowers the evidentiary burden for border officers to clear and convincing evidence.
- LPR Muk Choi Lau faced trademark counterfeiting charges and was paroled upon reentry instead of being admitted.
- Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion affirming broad government authority at the border.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the ruling grants the government excessive power over green card holders.
On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 vote in Blanche v. Lau that immigration officers are not required to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident (LPR) committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an applicant for admission at the border.
The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen who obtained LPR status in 2007. Lau was charged with trademark counterfeiting in 2012 and traveled internationally while the charge was pending. Upon his return to the U.S., instead of being admitted as an LPR, Lau was paroled into the country by immigration officials pending further review due to the pending criminal charge.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, emphasized that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose a requirement that officers demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of a crime involving moral turpitude before classifying an LPR as an applicant for admission. He stated, "Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude." This ruling grants immigration authorities broader discretion in such cases.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, criticized the decision, cautioning that it "handed the Government a massive blank check," undermining the procedural protections for green card holders.Her dissent highlights concerns over due process and rights of lawful permanent residents.
This ruling modifies the immigration enforcement landscape by easing the standard of proof required for border officers to deny admission status to LPRs returning with alleged criminal involvement. Corporate legal counsel and immigration attorneys must now navigate these expanded government powers when advising green card-holding employees with potential criminal issues.
By the numbers:
- 6-3 — Supreme Court vote in Blanche v. Lau
- 2007 — Year Muk Choi Lau became a lawful permanent resident
- 2012 — Year Lau was charged with trademark counterfeiting and traveled abroad
Yes, but: While the ruling expands government authority, it raises concerns about potential overreach and reduced procedural protections for lawful permanent residents.
What's next: Legal practitioners will watch for how immigration officers implement this ruling and whether Congress considers legislative responses to redefine evidentiary standards or protections for green card holders.