It's coming down to the wire for the Supreme Court as it wraps up the 2025 term. With 17 cases yet to be decided, we knew heading into Thursday morning (one of the announced decision days) that there would likely be multiple decisions handed down and that one or more of them was likely to be a "big" one — as in one that was highly anticipated.
As it turns out, none of the five opinions issued by the Court today were "big" ones — except they're always big to the parties involved, and even some of the less flashy, procedural ones have far-reaching implications. That's unquestionably true of the decision in Blanche v. Lau, a case involving returning lawful permanent residents (LPRs) — green card holders — who leave the United States temporarily after allegedly committing certain crimes.
Now, normally, LPRs are treated as though they are already admitted to the United States when they return from brief travel abroad. But the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains exceptions — including when the alien "has committed" certain criminal offenses, including crimes involving "moral turpitude." The issue here was what level of proof border officers need at the airport or port of entry before invoking that exception.
Here's the background on this one: Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen, became a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2012, he was charged in New Jersey with trademark counterfeiting, but prior to trial, he traveled to China. When he attempted to return, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) paroled him into the U.S. rather than formally admitting him. Lau later pled guilty to the charges, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) then sought to remove him on inadmissibility grounds.
Lau argued that because officers lacked proof when he returned, he should have been regarded as already admitted and only subject to removal through deportation proceedings. The 2nd Circuit agreed with Lau, but the Supreme Court said no — the 2nd Circuit invented a burden that Congress never imposed.
ALSO SEE: Shocking! DC Appeals Court Actually Revives Trump's Expanded Expedited Removal Policy
8th Circuit Blows Open Federal Power to Detain Illegal Immigrants - Not Just at the Border
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court held that border officers do not need clear and convincing evidence that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a crime before regarding the resident as an applicant for admission and vacated the 2nd Circuit's decision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the dissent, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined.
In his opinion, Thomas emphasizes that the statute operates in two stages:
- Can the Government regard the person as seeking admission? (This only requires that the person committed one of the listed crimes.)
- Can the Government actually remove the alien? (Yes, if the Government can prove the alien's inadmissibility — Lau's guilty plea supplies that proof.)
But the 2nd Circuit mixed the two steps together, improperly requiring the Government to satisfy its ultimate evidentiary burden at the airport, before officers even decided how to classify the traveler. That evidentiary burden is nowhere to be found in the statute, so the courts can't simply impose it.
Now, one thing to note is that today's decision did not ultimately determine whether trademark counterfeiting is a crime involving "moral turpitude" — the Court sent the case back to the 2nd Circuit for further proceedings.
Ultimately, this one counts as a win for border officials and a reminder that courts shouldn't read into statutes requirements that simply aren't there.
🚨 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
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member