Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau

The Supreme Court resolved a dispute over when the government must prove that a lawful permanent resident committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) after that person reentered the country on parole. The supplied materials show the case was decided on June 23, 2026, but they do not include the vote, opinion lineup, or a fuller statement of which side prevailed.

A decision was released on June 23, 2026, but the supplied materials do not include the vote count or opinion lineup.

Majority

Thomas

Roberts

Alito

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

Barrett

Dissent

Jackson

Kagan

Sotomayor

The decision creates one nationwide rule for immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security in this kind of removal case. For example, a green-card holder who was paroled back into the United States after travel and later faces removal based on a listed offense will now be judged under the same Supreme Court rule everywhere.

Lower courts, immigration judges, and federal agencies must now apply the Supreme Court's rule in pending and future cases. Lau's case and similar disputes will move forward under that nationwide standard.

It asked whether the government had to already possess clear and convincing evidence of a listed offense when a lawful permanent resident last reentered on parole.

Lawful permanent residents who return on parole and later face removal based on offenses listed in Section 1182(a)(2) are directly affected. Immigration judges and DHS officials are affected too.

The lower system must apply the Supreme Court's rule to this case and others like it. Agencies and courts will use that rule in future removal proceedings.