How Blanche v. Lau Changed Travel Rules for Green Card Holders
If you have a green card and any kind of criminal history, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling on June 23, 2026 that you need to understand before your next international trip.
In a case called Blanche v. Lau, the Court ruled 6 to 3 that border officers do not need strong evidence that a returning green card holder committed a crime before treating that person as someone applying to enter the country for the first time. The decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, specifically addresses crimes involving moral turpitude, a legal category that generally covers offenses involving dishonesty, fraud, or intentional harm, as well as drug offenses. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
How the Law Treats Returning Green Card Holders
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, green card holders who travel abroad and return home are generally treated as residents coming back, not as newcomers applying for entry. This distinction matters because when the government treats you as a returning resident, it carries the burden of proving you should be removed. You have stronger legal protections and a better position if a dispute arises.
Before this ruling, the federal appeals courts disagreed about what the government needed to show at the border to reclassify a returning green card holder as someone “seeking admission.” The Second Circuit, the court that decided Lau’s case, required the government to have clear and convincing evidence of a disqualifying crime at the moment the person arrived at the border. Other circuits, including the Fifth and Ninth, did not require the same standard. The Supreme Court took the case to resolve that disagreement.
The Court Split the Process into Two Separate Steps
The Supreme Court held that treating a returning green card holder as an applicant for admission involves two steps that do not have to happen at the same time.
The first step happens at the border. An officer from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that inspects travelers at airports and border crossings, decides whether to treat you as a returning resident or as someone applying for admission. The Court ruled that the officer does not need clear and convincing evidence, the strong-evidence standard that normally applies in immigration proceedings, to make that decision. Nothing in the statute imposes that standard on border officers.
The second step happens later, in a removal hearing before an immigration judge. That is where the government must meet that strong-evidence standard, proving by clear and convincing evidence that you actually committed an offense that makes you inadmissible (meaning not eligible to enter or remain under immigration law). A pending charge alone is not enough at this stage. The government needs a conviction or an admission to the offense.
In Lau’s case, a New Jersey charge for trademark counterfeiting was filed about five weeks before he returned from a trip to China. When he arrived at JFK Airport on June 15, 2012, a border officer paroled him rather than admitting him because of the pending charge. Roughly a year later, Lau pleaded guilty, and the government used that conviction at his removal hearing. The Court held that both steps were proper.
Why This Reclassification Changes Your Legal Position
Once a border officer treats you as someone seeking admission rather than a returning resident, your legal rights shift in important ways.
The burden of proof moves to you. Instead of the government having to prove you should be removed, you now have to prove you should be allowed in.
The government can also charge you under the inadmissibility grounds, which are broader in important ways. For crimes involving moral turpitude, the standard deportation process that normally applies to people already admitted limits the charge to crimes committed within five years of admission that also carry a potential sentence of at least one year. The inadmissibility grounds have no such time limit or sentencing threshold.
There are also immediate practical consequences if CBP treats you as an applicant for admission. The officer may take your physical green card at the border. You may be allowed into the country on what is called immigration parole, which means you are physically present but not legally admitted. That distinction can affect your ability to prove your work authorization to an employer. If this happens, ask CBP about obtaining an I-551 stamp, which is temporary proof of your green card status, and contact an immigration attorney right away.
This does not mean your green card is automatically gone. At the removal hearing, the government still must meet the clear and convincing evidence standard. A charge that is later dismissed, or that ends in an acquittal, may not give the government enough to prove you are inadmissible. But fighting from this weaker legal position is significantly harder and more stressful than being treated as a returning resident.
Which Green Card Holders Are Most at Risk
This ruling addresses a specific part of the law that covers crimes involving moral turpitude and drug offenses. Not every criminal record triggers this risk, but the categories are broader than many people expect.
Green card holders with pending criminal charges face the highest risk. This is exactly what happened in Lau’s case. If you are charged with an offense that could qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude and you travel internationally before the case is resolved, a border officer can treat you as an applicant for admission. If you are later convicted, the government can use that conviction against you at the removal hearing.
Prior convictions for offenses that may qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude also create significant risk. This includes many fraud offenses, theft, and offenses involving intentional harm or deception. A minor sentence or no jail time does not automatically mean the offense falls outside this category. The analysis turns on the elements of the offense under immigration law, not how the case was labeled at sentencing. A petty offense exception does exist for a single minor crime involving moral turpitude with a maximum sentence of one year or less and an actual sentence of six months or less, but it is narrow and not everyone qualifies.
Dismissed charges and expunged records carry lower but real risk. A dismissal is generally not enough for the government to prove inadmissibility at the removal hearing. However, the record of the charge may still appear in federal law enforcement databases that CBP can access, and it can trigger additional screening at the border. Federal immigration law generally does not recognize state-level expungements as eliminating a conviction’s immigration consequences.
What Massachusetts Green Card Holders Should Know About CWOFs
If you have a criminal case in Massachusetts that ended with a continuance without a finding, known as a CWOF, this ruling is especially important for you.
A CWOF is not a conviction under Massachusetts state law, and many people reasonably assume it will not affect their immigration status. That assumption is wrong. Under federal immigration law, a CWOF counts as a conviction. If the underlying offense qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude, a CWOF can be used against you at a removal hearing the same way a guilty plea would be. Under this ruling, even a pending charge for a CWOF-eligible offense could trigger reclassification at the border if you travel internationally before the case is resolved.
This is one of the most common situations green card holders in Massachusetts face without realizing their criminal history carries immigration consequences.
Talk to an Attorney Before You Travel
Do not wait to get to the border to find out where you stand. If you have any criminal history, including charges that were dismissed, offenses that were expunged, or a Massachusetts CWOF, speak with an immigration attorney before you book international travel. An attorney can review your record, tell you whether any of your offenses may qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude, and help you understand your risk.
If you have already returned from a trip and CBP treated you as an applicant for admission, contact an attorney immediately.
Reach out to Brooks Law Firm today to schedule a free consultation, and we will give you an honest look at your options. Call (617) 245-8090.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a DUI count as a crime involving moral turpitude under this ruling?
A simple DUI generally does not qualify, so the Blanche v. Lau ruling would not apply in most DUI cases. However, DUI offenses with aggravating factors may present different issues depending on how the offense is classified under the law of the state where it occurred. If you have a DUI and plan to travel, speaking with an immigration attorney beforehand is the safest step.
What happens if CBP does not admit me when I return from a trip?
Your green card status is not lost at that point. However, you may face a removal hearing where you would have to prove your admissibility rather than the government having to prove you should be deported. Contact an immigration attorney immediately and ask CBP about obtaining an I-551 stamp as temporary proof of your status.
My criminal case was dismissed. Can I still travel safely?
A dismissed case generally does not give the government enough evidence to prove inadmissibility at the removal hearing, which is the second step in the process. However, at the first step, the border officer’s decision to reclassify you is based on whether you may have committed an offense, not on whether you were convicted. A dismissed charge can still trigger reclassification at the border, even if it would not hold up at the later hearing. Carry documentation of the dismissal when you travel, and consult an immigration attorney before your trip if the underlying offense could involve moral turpitude.
I have a Massachusetts CWOF. Does that count as a conviction for immigration purposes?
Yes. Under federal immigration law, a Massachusetts CWOF is treated as a conviction even though it is not one under state law. If the underlying offense qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude, the CWOF carries the same immigration consequences as a guilty plea. An attorney can review your specific CWOF and tell you whether it creates risk for international travel.
Can the government take my green card at the border?
Yes. If a CBP officer treats you as an applicant for admission, the officer may confiscate your physical green card. This does not mean your status has been revoked, but it does mean you will need temporary documentation. Ask CBP about an I-551 stamp and contact an immigration attorney as soon as possible.
