Today, the Supreme Court affirmed an important tool DHS has long used to prevent criminals from entering our country. Big win! https://t.co/E4pAAE8CTj
— James Percival (@DHSGenCounsel) June 23, 2026
The US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that immigration officers are not required to have clear and convincing evidence that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating the resident as an applicant for admission rather than as someone already admitted to the United States.
The 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau vacated a 2025 ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remanded the case. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), lawful permanent residents (LPRs) generally must be treated as already admitted and need not reapply for admission when returning from temporary travel abroad. The government may instead regard an LPR as “seeking an admission” if the resident “has committed” certain offenses, including a crime involving moral turpitude. An LPR charged as an applicant for admission bears the burden of proving admissibility, while the government must prove deportability for a resident deemed already admitted.
The case concerned Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen who became an LPR in 2007. New Jersey charged Lau with trademark counterfeiting in 2012. After he briefly traveled to China and sought to reenter at John F. Kennedy International Airport, a border officer declined to treat him as already admitted and paroled him into the country pending resolution of the charge. Lau pleaded guilty in 2013, and the government later initiated removal proceedings, charging him as inadmissible for a crime involving moral turpitude. An immigration judge found him removable, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
more:
Replies