A recent Supreme Court ruling has created new travel concerns for some green card holders with unresolved criminal cases or past convictions.
In Blanche v. Lau, decided June 23, 2026, the Court ruled that border officers do not need clear and convincing evidence at the airport before treating a returning lawful permanent resident as an applicant for admission.
The decision does not affect most green card holders with no relevant criminal history. It also does not allow the government to revoke permanent residence based only on suspicion, but it gives immigration officers more flexibility during the initial inspection process.
The case involved a pending criminal charge
Muk Choi Lau became a lawful permanent resident in 2007 and later faced a New Jersey charge involving counterfeit goods.
While the criminal case was still pending, Lau traveled briefly to China. When he returned through John F. Kennedy International Airport in June 2012, border officials did not formally admit him as a returning resident.
Instead, they paroled him into the United States while leaving the question of his admissibility unresolved. Lau later pleaded guilty, and immigration officials used that conviction to begin removal proceedings.
The Supreme Court reversed a lower ruling
The Second Circuit had concluded that the government needed clear and convincing evidence at the time Lau returned before treating him as an applicant for admission.
The Supreme Court rejected that requirement in a 6–3 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require officers to possess that level of proof during the initial airport inspection.
The Court remanded the case for further proceedings and did not decide whether Lau’s specific offense constituted a crime involving moral turpitude.
Officers can act before a conviction
Lawful permanent residents returning from brief trips are normally not treated as applicants seeking admission.
One exception applies when the government believes the resident has committed certain offenses, including some crimes involving moral turpitude. The Court emphasized that the statute refers to whether a person “has committed” an offense rather than whether that person had already been convicted when reaching the border.
That means a pending charge can support further scrutiny even before a criminal court reaches a verdict. However, the decision does not establish that every charge or arrest is enough to trigger the exception.
The government must still prove its case
The ruling lowered the evidentiary requirements for the initial border decision, but did not eliminate later legal protections.
If the government seeks removal, it must still establish the relevant facts during immigration proceedings under the required standard of proof. The resident can challenge whether the alleged conduct occurred and whether the offense falls within a category that affects admissibility.
A border officer’s initial judgment is therefore not the final decision on whether the person loses permanent resident status.
An arrest alone does not prove inadmissibility
An arrest that ends without charges or a dismissal does not automatically make someone inadmissible.
Arrest records can appear during federal database checks and may lead to additional questions or secondary inspection. Officers may ask about the circumstances, request court records, or delay a final admission decision.
However, an arrest alone does not establish that a person committed a crime. Green card holders should carry certified records showing dismissals, acquittals, or final case outcomes that were applicable
Parole does not automatically cancel a green card
Immigration parole allows a person to enter the United States physically without being formally admitted for immigration purposes.
Being paroled can leave a returning resident exposed to inadmissibility proceedings that might not apply after a normal admission. It can therefore have serious legal consequences.
However, parole itself does not automatically terminate lawful permanent resident status. The government acknowledged during the case that an LPR generally retains that status while paroled, unless it is later terminated through a lawful removal process or an abandonment determination.
Certain convictions create greater travel risks
Green card holders should be particularly careful when their history includes fraud, theft, counterfeiting, controlled substances, or other offenses that immigration law may treat as grounds of inadmissibility.
The immigration consequences of a crime do not always match its seriousness under state law. A misdemeanor can sometimes create major immigration problems, while another offense with a more severe sentence may not fall within the same federal category.
Old convictions can also matter. Travel may expose a resident to a new admissibility review even when the person has lived in the United States for many years.
Legal advice may be needed before travel
Most permanent residents can continue traveling internationally without being affected by this decision.
Anyone with a pending charge, plea agreement, conviction, or uncertain criminal record should consider speaking with an immigration attorney before leaving the country. The attorney may need to review the criminal statute, the court disposition, the sentence, the travel history, and possible immigration exceptions.
Travelers should not rely solely on a criminal defense lawyer’s statement that a case was minor. Criminal and immigration laws classify offenses differently, and leaving the country can create risks that were not present while the resident remained inside the United States.
TL;DR
- The Supreme Court decided Blanche v. Lau on June 23, 2026.
- Border officers do not need clear and convincing evidence at the airport before treating certain green card holders as applicants for admission.
- The case involved a permanent resident who traveled while a counterfeiting charge was pending.
- A pending charge may trigger additional scrutiny, but an arrest alone does not prove inadmissibility.
- The government must still prove its case during removal proceedings.
- Immigration parole does not automatically cancel lawful permanent resident status.
- Green card holders with pending cases or relevant convictions should seek legal advice before international travel.
