As discussed in a previous column, the US Supreme Court, by a 6-3 majority, issued a controversial ruling on 23 June that could potentially upend the longstanding practice of automatically “admitting” (save for a few well-defined exceptions) legal permanent residents (LPRs) into the US after a temporary sojourn abroad.

In Blanche v. Lau (Slip Op No. 25-429, 23 June 2026), America’s highest court ruled that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers have the on-the-spot authority to determine the admissibility of — and treat as applicants for admission (instead of automatically admitting under the law) — those LPRs with pending criminal charges, even without clear evidence of the commission of a crime.

While the said case has dealt only with the issue of a returning LPR with a pending criminal case, i.e., trademark counterfeiting (which falls under one of the six exceptions negating the automatic admission presumption under the law), the import of said ruling has the potential to extend beyond factually similar cases, given the current immigration climate in the country.

Indeed, there are those who believe, including lawyers from the American Immigration Council, that the government will endeavor to apply Lau’s lower standard not only to the “commission of a crime” scenario but to all other types of disqualifying exceptions, such as staying outside the country for over six months, leaving the country while in removal proceedings, relinquishing US permanent residence, engaging in illegal activity while abroad, or entering the US without inspection.

If that were to happen, and since the Court has practically given the CBP a “massive blank check” (in the words of a dissenting Justice) to determine inadmissibility despite the absence of clear and convincing evidence, perhaps it isn’t presumptuous to say that the fate of returning LPRs will now depend on the mood of the CBP officer on duty.

On the other hand, there are those who believe, including a few immigration practitioners, that the decision’s impact will be limited only to green card holders whose records are tainted with a disqualifying criminal offense.

Admittedly, unless and until it is revealed clearly how the CBP will apply the controversial ruling moving forward, there is no telling which direction the border enforcement wheel will turn.

Realistically, however, and thanks to the Lau ruling, there is no stopping a CBP officer at present, in situations where a nervous LPR’s responses to random entry questions appear inconsistent, or where a “hit” on a namesake’s record suddenly pops up on a security database, from treating the LPR as an applicant for admission and confiscating the latter’s green card while issuing an NTA, leaving the hapless fellow in immigration limbo while waiting for his day in court.

In such a scenario, even if the person ultimately prevails in court, that person would have irrevocably suffered years of extreme financial hardship and emotional distress resulting from a grave bureaucratic mistake.

With all these uncertainties, is it wise for a US green card holder to travel outside the country nowadays? It depends. If the trip is extremely important and there is nary a risk, however remote, of being flagged under the six admission exceptions, then it’s okay to go. Otherwise, staying put is the most prudent thing to do under the circumstances.