The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal border officials can use an indictment or other accusation to temporarily strip green cards from immigrants as they reenter the country. In Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429, decided on 6/23/26, a 6-3 majority has fundamentally lowered the evidentiary bar for border officials deciding whether returning lawful permanent residents can be treated as seeking new admission rather than automatically readmitted. This ruling will reshape how you advise green card holder clients on reentry risk, how you contest parole decisions at the border, and the proof DHS must assemble to remove an LPR based on pre-conviction conduct.
What changed
The 6-3 opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, says the officials do not need to have “clear and convincing” evidence of offenses at the time of the decision to suspend the status of a Lawful Permanent Resident, commonly known as a green card holder.
The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who was placed on immigration parole by border officials when he returned from a brief trip to China in 2012. At the time, Lau had been accused, but not convicted, of a counterfeiting-related offense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, overturning prior immigration rulings, and found that DHS lacked sufficient proof at the time of Lau’s reentry to justify treating him as seeking admission.
In a 6-3 ruling Tuesday, the court said the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to have a conviction or confession to a crime involving moral turpitude before paroling lawful permanent residents into the country. “We decline to read into the INA an additional clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers entrusted with making ‘quick judgments on the spot’ when that burden is nowhere in the statute,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that border agents do not need “clear and convincing evidence” to determine whether a lawful permanent resident can be treated as seeking admission to the United States after traveling abroad, a decision advocates say expands immigration officers’ discretion.
Why it matters
This ruling upends a core protection for green card holders and creates immediate operational risk for LPRs who travel internationally.
Reentry status is now discretionary, not presumptive. Under federal immigration law, green card holders are presumed to be able to reenter the country. But there are certain exceptions, such as when the immigrant has “committed” certain offenses, or admits to doing so, within five years of receiving the green card. Before Blanche v. Lau, the Second Circuit (and some commentators) required that DHS prove this exception applied at the moment of reentry—with substantial evidentiary weight. The Supreme Court has now severed that connection. The ruling effectively lowers the evidentiary threshold for making such determinations at the border.
Border officers can now parole first, prove guilt later. Lourdes M. Rosado, president and general counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, criticized the ruling, saying it “essentially hands a blank check to border officers” to presume guilt based on criminal accusations. Rosado added that the ruling could affect the nation’s approximately 12.8 million lawful permanent residents, leaving them vulnerable to discretionary decisions by border officials when returning from travel abroad.
The cascade effect on removal proceedings. She warned it could lead to detention, family separation and barriers to employment, housing and education if individuals’ status is downgraded. Once a border officer places an LPR on parole (treating them as an applicant for admission rather than a returning resident), DHS can initiate removal proceedings under the inadmissibility bars rather than the deportability bars—a procedurally and substantively more forgiving track for the government.
Way forward
-
Red-flag any client with pending criminal charges before international travel. If charges are possible, delay travel until conviction or dismissal. An unproven allegation is now enough for parole and removal risk.
-
Request NTA litigation strategy review. If a client was paroled at the border on pending-charge grounds, evaluate whether second-circuit precedent (now vacated) preserved room for administrative or judicial challenge. The remand to the Second Circuit may still offer procedural arguments about timing and discretion, even if the evidentiary standard has shifted.
-
Consider IJ and BIA arguments about statutory interpretation. Thomas’s opinion rests on the text of the INA not explicitly requiring clear-and-convincing proof at the border. At removal hearings, argue (a) that Congress’s admission-presumption language in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13) was intended to shield LPRs from readmission scrutiny at all, and (b) that due-process concerns animate the admissibility exceptions and should inform how flexibly they are applied to returning residents.
-
Advise green card holders about travel planning. International travel while any criminal allegations (even traffic, domestic dispute calls, or investigations) are pending carries substantially higher risk. Families should coordinate with counsel before any reentry until allegations are fully resolved.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific circumstances and strategy. This decision was issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2026 and is binding nationwide. The Court sent the case back to the Second Circuit for further consideration on subsidiary issues, and policy and law can change without notice—verify all guidance against the Supreme Court opinion and current agency guidance linked above.