The United States Supreme Court has handed the Trump administration a sweeping immigration victory, ruling that border officers may revoke the permanent residency status of green card holders based solely on unproven criminal allegations.
In a 6-3 decision issued on 23 June 2026, the Court ruled in Blanche v. Lau (No. 25-429) that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officials to possess clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a disqualifying crime before stripping them of their already-admitted status. The ruling means immigration officers may consider pending criminal charges when deciding whether to readmit green card holders on temporary status, rather than as permanent residents.
The decision potentially affects nearly 13 million lawful permanent residents currently living in the United States.
A Green Card, A Counterfeiting Charge And 14 Years In Limbo
Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in September 2007. In May 2012, he was arrested and charged in New Jersey for allegedly selling nearly $300,000 worth of counterfeit Coogi shorts. Shortly after his arrest, Lau briefly left the country for China. Upon his return through John F. Kennedy International Airport on 15 June 2012, a border officer discovered his pending criminal charge.
Rather than admit him as a returning permanent resident, the legal default, agents confiscated his green card and paroled him, allowing him to physically enter the United States but only temporarily, so that he could face prosecution. Lau had not been convicted of any offence at the time of his return.
After Lau pleaded guilty to his trademark-counterfeiting charge on 24 June 2013, the Government initiated removal proceedings against him on 13 March 2014. What followed was more than a decade of legal uncertainty. When Lau was paroled as a lawful permanent resident 'seeking an admission', border officers confiscated his I-551, his permanent green card. In its stead, they issued him an I-94 Arrival/Departure Card bearing only handwritten information and a stapled photograph, offering no clear indication of his permanent resident status. That piece of paper has been his only proof of his status for the past 14 years.
BREAKING: In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Department of Homeland Security may revoke a lawful permanent resident’s status if they leave the United States while facing pending criminal charges, even without a conviction. The court’s liberal justices… pic.twitter.com/FoxTS0OokC
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 23, 2026
What The Court Decided – And How It Works In Practice
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The Court held that the INA does not impose a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers at the time of re-entry. Thomas wrote that the Court declines to 'read into the INA an additional clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers entrusted with making quick judgments on the spot' when that burden appears nowhere in the statute.
Under the ruling, removal of a lawful permanent resident on inadmissibility grounds involves a two-step process: commission of the crime triggers the 'seeking admission' classification, while conviction or admission establishes inadmissibility at a subsequent hearing. The Court vacated the Second Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, declining to decide whether Lau's offence constituted a crime involving moral turpitude.
A 'Massive Blank Check': Dissent Warns Of 'Immigration Limbo'
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a sharp dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Jackson warned that the decision effectively sentenced a green card holder to 'immigration limbo' before conviction of any crime, writing: 'I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check.'
Jackson argued that the majority's interpretation undermines the statutory guarantee that lawful permanent residents 'shall not be regarded as seeking an admission' unless specific exceptions apply. She warned that, in the worst-case scenario under the majority's holding, the Government could 'merely assume at the border that any one of the six exceptions applies to a lawful permanent resident, without any evidence, and prove the applicability of the statutory downgrade at a later removal hearing, using evidence accrued in the meantime.'
The practical consequences extend well beyond legal status. Immigration legal groups, including the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that without a green card, a lawful permanent resident will not be able to secure a job, healthcare, housing, a bank account or education. If a lawful permanent resident is classified as seeking admission, they could be placed in detention even if charges against them are later dropped.
🚨 In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the INA does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission. pic.twitter.com/0iNLoRp2yb
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 23, 2026
DHS Hails 'Big Win' For Trump-Era Policy
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the ruling without reservation. James Percival, the general counsel for DHS, described it in unambiguous terms. 'Today, the Supreme Court affirmed an important tool DHS has long used to prevent criminals from entering our country. Big win!' Percival said in an emailed response.
The ruling in Blanche v. Lau marks a sweeping victory for the Trump administration's immigration agenda, which had actively urged the high court to take an expansive view of executive power. The case was argued before the Court on 22 April 2026 and decided along ideological lines, precisely as oral argument had foreshadowed.
Critics had warned that if the Court ruled as it did, DHS would gain the power to seize the green cards and place in indefinite legal limbo the status of any lawful permanent resident after international travel, without judicial review. For Muk Choi Lau, who received only two years' probation for his counterfeiting conviction, the ruling means his decade-long fight against deportation continues on remand, the outcome still unresolved.
The decision cements a new legal reality: a green card, once considered near-inviolable proof of permanent belonging, can now be confiscated at the airport gate on nothing more than a criminal accusation.
