The Supreme Court of the United States issued a significant ruling on June 23, 2026, regarding the immigration status of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) at the border. The case, Blanche v. Lau (Docket No. 25-429), involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen who faced removal from the country after being charged with a crime. The Court's decision clarifies the standards under which border officers can classify LPRs as seeking admission to the U.S., which could have implications for many immigrants.
This ruling is particularly important as it affects how lawful permanent residents are treated when they attempt to reenter the United States after traveling abroad. The outcome of this case may influence future immigration proceedings and the treatment of LPRs who have faced legal issues.
Background
Muk Choi Lau became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2007. In May 2012, he was charged with trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey. While awaiting trial, Lau traveled to China. Upon his return to the U.S. on June 15, 2012, a border officer did not treat him as already admitted due to his pending criminal charge. Instead, the officer paroled Lau into the country, allowing him to enter without formal admission.
After Lau pleaded guilty to the trademark counterfeiting charge in June 2013, the U.S. government initiated removal proceedings against him. The government classified Lau as an applicant for admission who was inadmissible due to his crime. Lau contested this classification, arguing that he was a lawful permanent resident and should not be treated as an applicant for admission. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the government's decision to remove Lau based on his conviction.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require border officers to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime before classifying them as seeking admission. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, stating, "The Government correctly regarded Lau as an applicant for admission, so it properly charged him with inadmissibility."
The Court explained that the process of removing a lawful permanent resident on grounds of inadmissibility involves two steps. First, the government must show that the individual committed a crime. Second, it must demonstrate that the individual is inadmissible due to that crime. The Court found that Lau was correctly charged with inadmissibility because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before attempting to reenter the country.
The Court disagreed with the Second Circuit's conclusion that the government needed to prove Lau's crime by clear and convincing evidence at the border. The ruling emphasized that the INA does not impose such a burden on border officers, who must make quick judgments at the border.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for lawful permanent residents who may face legal challenges while abroad. It clarifies that border officers can classify LPRs as seeking admission based on pending criminal charges, without needing to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at the time of entry. This decision may lead to more LPRs being classified as applicants for admission, which could result in increased removals from the country.
The ruling also highlights a division among the circuit courts, as the Second Circuit's decision conflicted with those of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits. By resolving this conflict, the Supreme Court has established a clearer standard that will likely influence how similar cases are handled in the future.
What's Next
While the Supreme Court's ruling is final, the case has been remanded to the Second Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The government may still pursue deportability charges against Lau based on his criminal conviction. This ruling sets a precedent that could affect many lawful permanent residents in similar situations moving forward.