The Supreme Court’s ruling in Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau has introduced new travel rules for green card holders that overturn the legal framework governing reentry to the U.S. for decades. On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that CBP can treat any returning green card holder as “seeking admission” with no prior exception required. The decision significantly reduces protections you’ve relied on if you hold a green card and plan international travel, especially if you have any criminal history or pending charges.
What changed
Before this ruling, returning green card holders were presumed admitted, and CBP needed a specific legal exception to treat you otherwise. After the ruling, CBP can now treat any returning green card holder as seeking admission by default, with no exception needed.
The Court held that the INA permits border officers to “parole” returning LPRs suspected of inadmissibility issues, rather than admit them in the usual course, without establishing by “clear and convincing evidence” that they are inadmissible. The government may instead establish the relevant inadmissibility basis later during removal proceedings.
The ruling most affects anyone ever convicted of a crime who travels internationally. For anyone with a criminal history, the risk at reentry is much higher now.
Why it matters
The shift from “clear and convincing evidence” to a lower “reason to believe” standard gives CBP officers dramatically wider discretion at the border. CBP can confiscate your green card and issue a 1-year temporary document (I-94/I-551 stamp) instead, which causes problems with jobs, banks, housing, insurance, and schools. Worst case: you could end up in removal proceedings and lose your green card permanently.
Advisers caution that routine encounters at airports and land borders may now carry higher stakes, particularly where records suggest possible crimes involving moral turpitude or other disqualifying conduct under immigration law. Travelers could be subjected to secondary inspection, intensive document review, and detailed questioning about their criminal and travel history.
A plea deal, a reduced charge, a dismissed case: none of these automatically protect you at the border anymore. Immigration law treats these differently than criminal law does, and the Supreme Court has now made it easier for border officials to act on allegations alone rather than waiting for proof.
Way forward
If you hold a green card and have any criminal history—whether conviction, pending charge, arrest, plea, misdemeanor, or dismissed case—do not travel internationally without legal advice. Here are your immediate steps:
-
Consult an immigration attorney before booking travel. The clear warning from immigration attorneys after today: do not travel internationally if you have ever been convicted of a crime without first speaking to an immigration lawyer.
-
Review your full criminal and arrest record with counsel to assess what immigration law may consider a disqualifying offense. Minor or years-old conduct can still trigger enhanced scrutiny.
-
If you are reclassified at the border, do not sign anything and do not agree to voluntary departure. If you are reclassified at the border, do not sign anything and do not agree to voluntary departure without speaking to an attorney first. Voluntary departure gives up important rights. The temporary I-94/I-551 stamp you receive has real consequences for employment, housing, and status.
-
Prepare documentation of your status and admissibility. Bring any evidence of rehabilitation, employment, ties to family and community, and lack of additional criminal conduct since any prior offense.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Editorial is a software service, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and changes frequently. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney licensed in your state before making travel or filing decisions. The information here is accurate as of the publication date but should be verified against the primary Supreme Court opinion and current agency guidance, as policy can change without notice.