Supreme Court Rules on Green Card Holders' Rights in Blanche v. Lau
Supreme Court rules border agents can treat returning green card holders with pending charges as applicants for admission.
Why it matters: This decision affects how immigration law treats lawful permanent residents (LPRs) with unresolved criminal charges, impacting attorneys and corporate legal teams managing immigration compliance.
- The 6-3 June 23, 2026 ruling favors the government in Blanche v. Lau.
- Border officers can treat LPRs with pending criminal charges as applicants for admission without clear and convincing evidence of a crime.
- The ruling vacates a 2025 Second Circuit decision protecting LPRs from removal without clear evidence.
- Justice Thomas authored the majority opinion; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, citing risks of government overreach.
On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, significantly changing the legal landscape for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) returning to the U.S. The Court ruled that border officers can treat LPRs who have pending criminal charges as applicants for admission, even without "clear and convincing evidence" that the individual committed a crime. This overturns the 2025 Second Circuit ruling, which required such standard evidence before removal proceedings.
The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and LPR since 2007, who faced trademark counterfeiting charges in New Jersey in 2012. When he returned from China that June, he was paroled into the U.S. pending his criminal case resolution. Now, the Supreme Court has confirmed that border agents can treat such returning residents as new applicants under parole procedures, potentially subjecting them to removal without traditional evidentiary thresholds.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, emphasized that "border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude." This gives the government broader authority to scrutinize LPRs at the border.
However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented strongly, warning that the ruling "hands the Government a massive blank check" that risks infringing on green card holders' due process rights.
This ruling shifts the balance, making immigration enforcement at U.S. borders more stringent for LPRs with pending criminal issues. It signals that immigration attorneys and corporate legal departments must reassess risks related to employee travel and ongoing criminal matters to mitigate potential complications under this new framework.
By the numbers:
- 6-3 — Supreme Court decision split in Blanche v. Lau
- June 23, 2026 — date of the Supreme Court ruling
- 2012 — year Muk Choi Lau was charged with trademark counterfeiting
- 2025 — year of the Second Circuit Court decision vacated by Supreme Court
Yes, but: The ruling gives border officers discretion but does not clarify specific criteria for determining "reason to believe" an LPR committed a crime, leaving some uncertainty.
What's next: Legal experts expect immigration law practitioners to closely monitor how agencies implement this ruling and may seek legislative or judicial clarifications.