The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration Tuesday, allowing immigration officials to deny green card holders admission to the country.
The court’s 6-3 ruling in Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Lau allows border officials to deny admission — permission to remain in the U.S. indefinitely — to a legal permanent resident (LPR) suspected of crime under certain circumstances, authorizing officials to parole such LPRs instead.
Authorities typically view LPRs as already admitted to the U.S. when they return from temporary travel, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This allows traveling green card holders to avoid the rigorous processing new immigrants must undergo.
However, the INA provides an exception when an official believes the LPR has committed a “crime involving moral turpitude,” according to court documents. The court ruled border officials do not need to have “clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed” such a crime before they consider denying that resident admission, according to Justice Clarence Thomas‘ majority opinion.
🚨 In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the 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. pic.twitter.com/0iNLoRp2yb
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 23, 2026
The case came to the court after Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and green card holder, appealed an immigration officer’s 2012 decision to place him on parole after he returned from a short trip. New Jersey had accused Lau of trademark counterfeit in May 2012, but Lau decided to travel to China prior to the trial and was paroled upon his return. Lau appealed the parole, arguing the government should have designated him as an “already admitted” LPR instead of labeling him as an applicant “seeking admission,” according to court documents. This distinction allowed the Department of Homeland Security to take swifter action in deporting him.
Trump administration officials argued that suspicion of a crime is a sufficient reason for placing an LPR on immigrant parole.
Blanche v. Lau overturned a Second Circuit Court’s ruling that border officials need “clear and convincing evidence” of crime prior to denying admission, instead concluding that Lau had been “correctly charged with inadmissibility.” (RELATED: Judge Shuts Down Trump Admin Database Used To Remove Non-Citizens From Voter Rolls)
“At step one, the Government regarded him as an alien seeking admission because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before attempting to reenter the country. At step two, he was inadmissible and therefore removable because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,” the majority opinion reads.
Justice Ketanji Brown wrote the dissenting opinion, with Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan concurring. Brown argued that the court’s decision “allows the Government to deem an LPR to be ‘seeking an admission’ first and justify the applicability of an exception later — undermining the statutory scheme as well as the benefits and security that come with having a green card,” according to court documents.