Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General, Petitioner v. Muk Choi Lau

The case asked when the government may treat a lawful permanent resident returning from abroad as someone seeking admission after a crime listed in the immigration inadmissibility law. The Court said the government does not need to prove it already had clear and convincing evidence of that crime at reentry; it can prove the offense later in the removal case.

This makes it easier for the government to remove some green-card holders who committed listed crimes, even if officials lacked full proof when they came back. For example, a returning resident later shown in court to have committed a qualifying offense can still be treated as inadmissible.

Immigration judges, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and lower courts will apply this rule in pending and future removal cases. The next fights will focus on whether the offense qualifies under the statute and whether the person actually committed it.

The dispute was whether the government needed clear and convincing proof of a listed crime at the exact time of a green-card holder's reentry. The Court said no.

A returning green-card holder can face removal even if officials lacked full proof at the border. Later proof in immigration court can be enough.

Lower courts and immigration agencies must follow this rule in current and future cases. The remaining case-specific questions will center on the offense and proof.