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: