Opinion Summary: Blanche v. Lau | Seize Green Cards First and Prove Why Later

Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau | Case No. 25-429 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 22, 2026 | Decided: June 23, 2026

Overview: The Court addressed whether border officers must possess clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a crime before stripping that person of already-admitted status and treating the holder as an applicant for admission.

Question Presented: Whether the INA requires border officers to possess clear and convincing evidence of a crime before treating a green card holder as seeking admission.

Posture: Second Circuit vacated removal order; Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve circuit split.

Main Arguments:

• Petitioner (Government):

• (1) The INA imposes no evidentiary burden on border officers making on-the-spot classification decisions;
• (2) the two-step framework requires crime commission at step one and conviction at step two, both satisfied here;
• (3) the government met the clear-and-convincing standard at the removal hearing through Lau's guilty plea.

• Respondent (Lau):

• (1) The INA's "shall not" command required the government to determine whether an exception applied before treating a returning green card holder as seeking admission;
• (2) the statute's present-perfect tense confirms border officers must make that determination at the moment of reentry, not later;
• (3) a conviction entered after the parole decision cannot retroactively justify the border officer's classification call.

Holding: The INA does not require a border officer to possess clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating the resident as an applicant for admission.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Second Circuit judgment vacated and remanded.

Majority Reasoning:

• (1) Section 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) requires only crime commission — not conviction — at step one to trigger "seeking admission" status; conviction or admission of guilt at step two establishes inadmissibility;
• (2) the INA nowhere imposes a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers making on-the-spot classification calls;
• (3) the BIA's clear-and-convincing standard applies at removal hearings — not at the border — and the government satisfied it through Lau's guilty plea.

Separate Opinions: • Justice Jackson (dissenting, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan): The INA's "shall not" command required the government to determine whether an exception applied before reclassifying a returning green card holder as seeking admission. The majority permits post hoc justification, gutting the statutory protection Congress built for green card holders.

Implications:

• (1) Green card holders face possible parole at any border crossing if a pending criminal charge appears in federal databases — no evidentiary floor required at the moment of the call;
• (2) courts must still resolve what standard — if any — governs border officers' parole decisions;
• (3) the Second Circuit must decide on remand whether Lau's conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Fine Print:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v): "An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for the purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien . . . has committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2) of this title"
• 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I): "convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of . . . a crime involving moral turpitude"

Primary Cases:

• Barton v. Barr (2020): Established the two-step framework for removing returning lawful permanent residents — crime commission at step one triggers "seeking admission" status; conviction at step two establishes inadmissibility.
• Matter of Valenzuela-Felix (BIA 2012): The Board of Immigration Appeals applied the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard to removal hearings only, not the border — the distinction the majority adopted and the Second Circuit ignored.

Oral Advocates:

• Petitioner (United States): Sopan Joshi of the Department of Justice
• Respondent (Muk Choi Lau): Shay Dvoretzky of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP