What’s Happening
On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Blanche v. Lau that will have a significant impact on certain lawful permanent residents (“green card holders” or “LPRs”) with prior criminal histories coming back into the U.S. after traveling abroad.
The old rule
Before the Supreme Court’s decision, green card holders returning from a short trip abroad were generally treated as “returning residents” (e.g., people already living in the U.S.) rather than as “applicants for admission” (e.g., new applicants trying to enter). This distinction mattered significantly, because:
Returning residents are generally admitted without much scrutiny from CBP, and if any issue arose later, the government had to proceed under the more favorable rules that apply to people already living here (the rules governing deportability).
Applicants for admission, by contrast, are treated as if arriving at the border for the first time, and are held to a stricter set of rules governing who may enter (the rules governing admissibility).
Even under the old framework, CBP could treat a returning green card holder as an applicant for admission in certain situations including where officers already had “clear and convincing evidence” that the person had committed certain serious crimes, most commonly a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude or “CIMT” (a crime seen as dishonest or immoral, such as fraud) or a drug-related offense. The existence of a pending criminal case alone did not necessarily mean that an LPR would be treated as an applicant for admission. Rather, CBP needed clear and convincing evidence that the individual had committed a qualifying offense at the time of reentry.
The new rule
The Supreme Court held that CBP officers are not required to possess “clear and convincing evidence” of relevant criminal activity at the time of a green card holder’s reentry before treating that individual as an applicant for admission rather than a returning resident. Instead, the government may present its full evidence later, during separate immigration court proceedings before an immigration judge, rather than needing it upfront at the airport or border crossing.
What You Need to Know
Impact on How LPRs are Let Back Into the U.S.
Being classified as an “applicant for admission” rather than a “returning resident” can meaningfully change what happens to someone at the border. If CBP treats a returning LPR as an applicant for admission, the practical consequences may include:
Admission of an LPR into the country only on a temporary, conditional basis (known as “parole”) rather than being readmitted as a permanent resident
Referral of an LPR to a lengthy legal process known as “removal proceedings,” which often last years and may ultimately result in an order of removal (e.g., deportation).
This distinction is the central reason the Supreme Court's decision carries the significance that it does.
Criminal Activity that Could Result in Admission Issues
This Supreme Court decision is most relevant for lawful permanent residents whose criminal history may implicate the criminal-related grounds of inadmissibility including crimes classified as CIMTs and controlled substance offenses. Examples include:
Fraud (e.g., wire fraud, tax fraud, identity theft)
Theft, larceny, or embezzlement
Forgery or counterfeiting
Robbery or burglary (with intent to commit a crime)
Murder, rape, or other serious crimes against persons
Drug-related offenses (e.g., trafficking)
Now, CBP may classify certain LPRs as applicants for admission before an immigration court ultimately determines whether that classification was proper.
Potential Consequences of Being Treated as an Applicant for Admission
Where CBP determines that a returning lawful permanent resident should be treated as an applicant for admission, the practical consequences may include:
Parole into the United States rather than admission as a returning resident
Secondary inspection and extended questioning
Referral for removal proceedings before an immigration judge
Confiscation of the physical green card and issuance of temporary documentation
Extended periods of uncertainty regarding immigration status while removal proceedings remain pending
Additional litigation regarding admissibility or removability
Importantly, the Court did not hold that a criminal charge alone automatically renders a lawful permanent resident inadmissible. Nor did the Court eliminate the government’s burden of proof during removal proceedings.
Rather, the decision concerns when that burden must be satisfied and the government’s ability to classify certain returning lawful permanent residents as applicants for admission before ultimately establishing whether a statutory exception applies.
Conclusion
Lawful permanent residents with pending criminal charges, prior convictions, or other potentially disqualifying criminal history should carefully evaluate travel plans before departing the United States and seek individualized immigration advice before scheduling international travel.
D&S will continue monitoring developments and agency implementation of this decision.
This alert is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult D&S immigration counsel regarding your specific circumstances. D&S Senior Associate, Paulina Baginska, assisted with the preparation of this alert.