International travel just became riskier for one group of lawful permanent residents. On June 23, 2026, in Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer does not need “clear and convincing evidence” that a returning green card holder committed a crime before treating that person as an applicant for admission rather than as a resident returning home. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) imposes no such heightened proof requirement at the border. The decision does not rewrite the rules for every returning permanent resident, but for any green card holder with a criminal record including old, minor, or still-unresolved matters, the Court’s decision removes an important and longstanding protection at the port of entry.

The general rule has not changed—but an exception just got easier to invoke. For decades, the settled framework under INA § 101(a)(13)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C), has been that a lawful permanent resident (LPR) returning from a trip abroad is not regarded as “seeking an admission” to the United States. Instead, the returning resident is treated as already admitted, and is spared the more rigorous processing that new arrivals face. That presumption gives way only where one of six narrow statutory exceptions applies—among them, the exception in subsection (C)(v) for an LPR who has committed certain offenses, including a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Blanche v. Lau concerns that criminal-offense exception, and only that exception. The Court did not eliminate the general rule, and a returning green card holder with no criminal history remains protected by it.

What the Court actually decided. The case arose from Muk Choi Lau, who became a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In May 2012, he was charged in New Jersey with trademark counterfeiting. While the charge was pending and therefore an assumption of innocence until proven otherwise, he traveled abroad and returned through John F. Kennedy International Airport. Rather than admit him as a returning resident, CBP paroled him into the country under INA § 212(d)(5)(A), and after he later pleaded guilty, the government placed him in removal proceedings on inadmissibility grounds. The Second Circuit sided with Lau, holding that a border officer needed clear and convincing evidence that the resident actually committed a disqualifying crime (not merely a pending charge) before downgrading him to “seeking admission.” The Supreme Court reversed. It explained that establishing inadmissibility on this ground is a two-step process: at the border, the government need only have a basis to conclude that the resident committed a qualifying offense in order to treat the person as seeking admission; at the removal hearing, the government must then prove inadmissibility through a conviction or an admission of the conduct, where its burden remains intact. The Court grounded its reading in the statutory text, noting that the exception is triggered by having “committed” the offense, and declined to follow contrary footnote language from its earlier decision in Vartelas v. Holder. Notably, the Court did not decide whether Lau’s trademark counterfeiting offense is itself a crime involving moral turpitude, and it expressly left open the separate question of who bears the burden of establishing applicant-for-admission status at the border.

Why the “seeking admission” label carries serious consequences. The distinction between “already admitted” and “seeking an admission” is not a technicality; it reshapes a person’s rights. A green card holder treated as seeking admission is routed onto the inadmissibility track, which is materially less favorable than ordinary deportation proceedings. As Justice Jackson detailed in dissent, an LPR placed in this posture may have the physical green card (Form I-551) confiscated at the border and replaced with an I-94 Arrival/Departure record bearing only a handwritten “I-551” notation. The government instructs employers to treat such an I-94 as a short-term receipt of work authorization—valid for roughly one year—rather than as proof of permanent status, after which the resident must once again produce a permanent resident card. In practice, that temporary documentation can make it harder to change jobs, open bank accounts, secure housing, obtain health insurance, and enroll in school. The burden of proof also shifts: when the government seeks to remove a resident treated as already admitted, it bears the burden of proving removability; when the resident is treated as seeking admission, the resident may instead carry the burden of proving that he or she is not inadmissible.

The broader concern, and what the decision does not say. In dissent, Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, warned that the ruling hands the government what she called a “blank check,” cautioning that an administration could leverage routine international travel to push large numbers of permanent residents into limbo over allegations that may never be proven. That is a forecast of how the decision could be applied at scale, not a description of what the majority held. A longitudinal history of SCOTUS jurisprudence tends to indicate dissenting justices views often come to fruition.

The majority’s holding is confined to the evidentiary standard at the border for the criminal-offense exception. It does not announce a blanket rule that every returning green card holder is an applicant for admission, it does not change the substantive grounds of inadmissibility, and it does not disturb the government’s ultimate burden in the removal hearing itself. What it does change is leverage: for residents with a criminal record, the practical threshold for being pulled aside and treated as an applicant for admission is now lower than it was yesterday.

What this means for you. If you are a lawful permanent resident with no criminal history, your status when returning from a trip abroad is, as a general matter, unchanged by this decision. If, however, you have any criminal record—a conviction, a pending charge, or even an arrest or an older matter you believe was long ago resolved—international travel now carries heightened risk. Whether a particular offense qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude is a technical and frequently contested question, and the answer is rarely obvious. Before you travel, and before you return to a U.S. port of entry, you should speak with an experienced immigration attorney to assess your specific history and understand your rights at the border. A short consultation in advance is far less costly than resolving a status problem after the fact.

For more information, or for a detailed conversation regarding your concerns about travel after the approval of your Green Card, please schedule a time to speak here.

By: Ryan A. Wilck, Partner and Attorney at Law

Ryan Wilck is a Managing Partner and attorney at Reddy & Neumann, P.C. with over a decade of US immigration law experience, enthusiastic and proactive in his approach assisting clients and their employees through the various phases of the permanent residency a/k/a Green Card process. “Concilio et labore” is not only the motto of Ryan’s favorite sports club but is also his life’s motto; all things come through wisdom and effort. Ryan is passionate about gaining the trust of his clients by utilizing a relentless and detail-oriented approach to understand their specific goals and concerns, hoping to instill a sense of confidence and stability. Whatever your immigration problem or interest, he and his team will find a solution, through wisdom and effort. Reddy & Neumann, P.C. has been serving the business community for over 20 years and is Houston’s largest immigration law firm focused solely on employment-based business immigration. We work with employers and their employees, helping navigate the complex immigration process efficiently and cost-effective.

We are committed to assisting our clients with navigating or avoiding the complex PERM Labor Certification (ETA 9089 and other challenging immigration matters as an accomplished immigration law firm in Houston, Texas. Our team is here to offer the direction and support you require, whether you’re a company trying to hire top talent or a foreign worker seeking to develop a career in the United States. To find out more about how we can help you with your immigration issues, get in touch with us right away.