Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau
In brief
The Court said border officers need not have clear and convincing evidence of a listed immigration offense before treating a returning green-card holder as seeking admission, then wiped out the Second Circuit’s ruling (vacated it) and sent Lau’s case back (remanded it).
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 23, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The Court ruled 6-3 for the government, holding that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to have clear and convincing evidence that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a qualifying crime before treating that person as seeking admission.
- Who it affects
- The ruling says the INA does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence of the listed offense before treating a returning green-card holder as seeking admission.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court vacated the Second Circuit’s decision and held that the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard applies at the removal hearing, where the government met that standard based on Lau’s guilty plea.
The case concerns how immigration law treats returning green-card holders when the government points to a qualifying crime at the border.
Question presented
To remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, must the government prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident’s last reentry into the United States?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Immigration and Nationality Act (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. 130 F. 4th 42, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
From the opinions
“Lawful permanent residents (LPRs)-also known as green card holders-have special status in the U. S. immigration system.”
What's next
The Second Circuit must now continue Lau’s case under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the INA. The decision itself does not determine whether Lau will ultimately be removed.
Why it matters
The Court sent Lau’s case back to the Second Circuit (remanded it), without deciding whether he will ultimately be removed.
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
Case data updated: title, summary
New analysis added
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - T
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court decide in Blanche v. Lau?
- The Court said the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require clear and convincing evidence of a listed offense. Border officers may treat a returning green-card holder as seeking admission without that proof.
- Did Blanche v. Lau decide whether Lau will be removed?
- No, the Court resolved the border-evidence question but did not decide Lau’s final removal outcome. It wiped out the Second Circuit’s ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back (remanded it).
- How did the justices vote in Blanche v. Lau?
- The Court ruled 6-3 for the government. Thomas wrote the opinion, signed on to by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett; Jackson dissented (disagreed), with Sotomayor and Kagan signing on.
- What happens next in Lau’s case?
- The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Second Circuit (remanded it). That court will continue proceedings under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the INA.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.