Supreme Court Expands Border Authority Over Green Card Holders With Criminal Issues

Key Point  

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that border officers can treat returning green card holders as applicants for admission based on alleged criminal conduct without needing clear evidence at the time of entry. 

Green Card Holders With Criminal Issues 

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Blanche v. Lau addressing how lawful permanent residents (LPRs) are treated when reentering the U.S. after travel abroad.  

The Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require border officers to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a qualifying crime before treating them as an applicant for admission.  

No “Clear and Convincing” Requirement at the Border 

The Court found that the INA does not impose a burden on border officers to establish, at the time of entry, that a returning LPR committed a crime involving moral turpitude.  

Officers may determine that an individual is seeking admission based on available information, without meeting a heightened evidentiary standard at the border.  

Two-Step Framework for Removal 

The Court clarified a two-step analysis under the INA: 

• Step one (at entry): Authorities may treat a lawful permanent resident as seeking admission if they have committed a qualifying offense 
• Step two (removal proceedings): A conviction or admission is required to establish inadmissibility  

The Court emphasized that commission of a crime—and not proof of conviction at the border—is sufficient for step one.  

Distinction Between Commission and Conviction 

The decision relies on statutory language that allows authorities to act when a person has “committed” a crime involving moral turpitude, even if a court enters a conviction later.

The Court stated that the statute requires only commission of the offense to classify the individual as seeking admission, while conviction becomes relevant at a later stage.  

Background 

The case involved a lawful permanent resident who traveled outside the U.S. while facing criminal charges, and border officers treated the individual as an applicant for admission upon return before later placing them in removal proceedings after a conviction.

Lower courts had required border officers to have clear and convincing evidence of the alleged crime at the time of entry. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, concluding that no such requirement exists in the INA.  

Practical Implications 

For Individuals 

• Immigration authorities may treat lawful permanent residents as applicants for admission based on alleged criminal conduct, even before a conviction
• Immigration authorities may parole individuals into the U.S. rather than formally admit them, depending on how they classify the individual

For Employers 

• Limited direct operational impact for employer-sponsored populations 
• Potential indirect relevance for employees who are green card holders traveling internationally 

For Immigration Policy 

• Confirms that border determinations may be made without a high evidentiary threshold 
• Reinforces the distinction between entry-stage determinations and removal proceedings 

Don’t Miss an Update

At Envoy Global, we combine smart, friendly legal teams with smart, friendly technology to facilitate immigration for companies and the global talent they depend on. Our holistic, proactive immigration services are built for accuracy and efficiency, always putting people first.

Reach out today to learn how we can support your company’s immigration needs.