Supreme Court Overturns Blanche v. Lau
The Supreme Court voted to overturn Blanche v. Lau, a case that helped permanent residents get back into the country after leaving of their own free will, on June 23, 2026.
The case, Blanche v. Lau, involved Muk Choi Lau. Mr. Lau was a lawful permanent resident of the United States, aka green card holder. Mr. Lau had been in the U.S. since 2007. He visited China in 2012 while he had a criminal charge pending in New Jersey. When he returned to the United States, immigration officials treated him differently than a normal returning green card holder because of the criminal case against him.
What was the debate?
Typically, when a green card holder departs the United States temporarily and returns, the government considers that person as already having been admitted into the country. They usually do not need to re-apply to enter the country.
But there are exceptions to immigration law. One exception is for crimes of moral turpitude, which is serious dishonesty or immoral conduct.
Lau argued immigration officials should be required to produce clear and convincing evidence he had committed such a crime before treating him as someone applying to enter the country again.
A lower federal court agreed with Lau. It ruled that immigration officials needed that strong level of evidence before treating him as an applicant for admission.
What did the Supreme Court rule?
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision on June 23, 2026. The justices ruled that immigration officials do not need to have “clear and convincing evidence” at the border before changing the fate of a returning green card holder.
In simple terms, immigration officers now have more discretion to stop and questioncertain green card holders when they re-enter the United States. The government can make that determination first and address the evidence in later immigration proceedings.
Why is this important?
The decision could make it harder for some green card holders to travel internationally if they face criminal charges or convictions. In general, a green card holder can assume they can reenter the U.S. without having to prove their right to do so. But after this decision, some people may be subject to further questioning or immigration proceedings upon their return.
The ruling does not mean that every green-card holder can be denied entry to the United States. It applies to some classes covered by immigration law. The Supreme Court also did not rule on whether Lau’s specific crime was a crime involving moral turpitude. But it sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court case of Blanche v. Lau shows how a decision involving one person can impact a much larger population. The ruling could increase uncertainty for certain green card holders, especially those with criminal cases or convictions, who travel outside the U.S. and then want to return.
What do permanent residents have to say about this?
Permanent resident Sarika Agrawal says, “It’s so crazy how much this country treats its immigrants. I have lived here for the majority of my life; I have a job, a house, and a kid who is an American citizen. But at the end of the day, I am a citizen of India, who is now being forced to give up that citizenship just so I am not stripped of all that I worked so hard to achieve. Even though I don’t have a criminal record, we never know how a border patrol agent will use this ruling to do as they please.”