The US Supreme Court, in a majority decision, ruled that US border officers are not required to possess clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime, for the admission exception to apply.
23 June 2026 will go down in history as the day US legal permanent residents (LPRs or green card holders) lost their most consequential privilege under US immigration law: the benefit of being presumed “admitted” whenever they reenter the US — in contrast to tourists and other non-immigrant travelers.
Under US immigration law, a green card holder entering the US after a temporary travel abroad is generally deemed “admitted” at the border, unless he/she falls under any of the following exceptions: has abandoned or relinquished his/her US residence, has stayed outside the US for over 180 days, or has committed a crime involving moral turpitude, among other things.
Prior to 23 June 2026, a green card holder traveling abroad without being handicapped by the above exceptions would have nothing to fear when returning to the US. However, the case of Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, decided on 23 June 2026, has changed all that.
In a precedent-setting decision that can significantly impact the travels of green card holders, the US Supreme Court has granted US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers much broader authority as far as determining admissibility of green card holders entering the US is concerned.
Whereas before CBP officers had no “judicially settled” authority to make a decision on the spot regarding a green card holder’s “admitted” status or to jeopardize one’s LPR status post-entry (unless clearly falling under any of the exceptions above), now they do.
In the Lau case, a green card holder, Mr. Lau, was charged with a crime in New Jersey before temporarily traveling to China. Upon his return to the US, he was denied admission as an LPR due to his pending case but was granted temporary parole. His green card was confiscated and he was issued a Form I-94 instead (with a temporary I-551 stamp).
After he pleaded guilty a year after his arrival, the US government placed him in removal proceedings. (For transparency purposes, all these events transpired during the time of former President Barack Obama.)
The US Supreme Court, in a majority decision penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled that US border officers are not required, during border entry inspections, to possess “clear and convincing evidence” that a green card holder has committed a crime, for the “admission” exception to apply.
Moreover, as pointed out by dissenting Justice Ketanji Jackson, the majority has practically absolved CBP officers of the burden of showing that an exception applies thereby defeating the statutory presumption of being admitted, “allowing the Government to deem an LPR to be ‘seeking an admission’ first and justify the applicability of an exception later — undermining the… benefits and security that come with having a green card.”
Unfortunately, and as observed by Justice Jackson, among the worst-case scenarios that could happen is the possibility that a CBP officer will assume — without evidence — that an exception applies to a traveling green card holder (an implicated namesake, for example) to prove it later during a removal hearing, long after the latter has already been stripped of the green card and all its attendant benefits, either as a parolee, or worse, as a detainee.
Worrisome news, indeed.
