Supreme Court Expands DHS Authority at the Border: What Green Card Holders Need to Know
On June 23, 2026, in the matter of Blanche v. Lau, 609 U.S. (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant immigration decision that affects lawful permanent residents (green card holders) returning to the United States after international travel.
What Changed?
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers do not need “clear and convincing evidence” at the border before treating certain returning green card holders as applicants for admission.
This means that if a lawful permanent resident has been accused or convicted of certain offenses—particularly crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs)—CBP may rely on evidence that becomes available after the border inspection, including later criminal convictions, when determining whether the individual should be treated as seeking admission to the United States.
The Case
The case involved a lawful permanent resident, Muk Choi Lau, who traveled abroad while criminal charges were pending in New Jersey. When he returned to the United States, he was allowed to physically enter the country on parole rather than being formally admitted. After he later pleaded guilty, the government initiated removal proceedings, arguing that he was inadmissible because of the conviction.
The Supreme Court concluded that immigration officers were not required to satisfy the higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard at the border before classifying him as an applicant for admission.
Importantly, the Court did not decide whether the offense itself qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude. That question was sent back to the lower courts.
What Does This Mean for Green Card Holders?
This decision gives DHS and CBP greater flexibility when evaluating returning lawful permanent residents who have pending criminal matters or criminal convictions.
However, the ruling does not mean that green card holders automatically lose their permanent resident status simply because they are accused of a crime.
Several important protections remain:
- A green card holder is still entitled to due process.
- The government must still prove removability during immigration proceedings.
- A criminal accusation alone does not automatically result in deportation.
- Each case depends on its own facts, the criminal statute involved, and the individual’s immigration history.
Before you travel;
If you are a green card holder and have:
- A pending criminal case,
- A prior arrest,
- A criminal conviction,
- A plea agreement, or
- Any concerns about your immigration status,
do not travel internationally without first consulting an experienced immigration attorney.
A trip outside the United States could trigger complex immigration consequences that may not be obvious until you attempt to return.
We Can Help
The intersection of criminal and immigration law is one of the most complicated areas of U.S. immigration law. If you or a loved one has questions about traveling with a green card or the immigration consequences of a criminal case, we are here to help.