RAICES Bulletin: SCOTUS Rules Against Green Card Holders
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR The Supreme Court ruled in Blanche v. Lau that border officers do not require clear and convincing evidence of a crime involving moral turpitude to classify a returning lawful permanent resident (LPR) as an applicant for admission. This decision significantly increases travel risks for LPRs with pending charges, exposing them to potential detention and removal proceedings based on unproven allegations well before a formal conviction is established.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: In Blanche v. Lau (June 23, 2026), the Supreme Court addressed whether a returning LPR who committed a crime involving moral turpitude can be regarded as seeking admission before being formally convicted. The Court centered on whether border officers need clear and convincing evidence of the crime at reentry to classify the LPR as seeking admission.
Rationale: The Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require border officers to have clear and convincing evidence of a crime involving moral turpitude to deem a returning LPR an applicant for admission. Rejecting the Second Circuit’s higher standard, the Court noted the statute imposes no such burden at the border; instead, a conviction or formal admission is only required later at a removal hearing to establish inadmissibility.
RAICES Impact: The decision potentially impacts organizations like RAICES by altering the legal landscape for LPRs facing removal proceedings. It underscores the importance of preparing for removal hearings where the government must prove inadmissibility, rather than focusing solely on the initial border encounter. This may require RAICES to adjust its strategies in advising clients on the implications of criminal charges when traveling abroad. Practitioners should advise LPR clients of the risks associated with international travel with pending charges.
Community Impact: The decision introduces profound instability for green card holders, exposing them to severe disruptions based on unproven allegations. Returning LPRs with pending charges face heightened scrutiny and potential removal proceedings. Because border officers can classify them as seeking admission, more LPRs risk green card confiscation, detention or parole instead of admission, and prolonged legal limbo that threatens their legal status and benefits.
Related Legal Battles: The decision highlights a conflict between the Second Circuit and other circuits, such as the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, regarding the evidentiary standards required at the border. Practitioners should monitor any further developments or cases that challenge the application of this decision, particularly those that might address the burden of proof at the border or the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude.
Broader Immigration Strategy: The Supreme Court continues to invite criticism for abandoning its Political Question Doctrine wherein it would avoid the appearance of furthering partisan prerogative. This decision clears the way for further weaponization of administrative processes to deprive immigrants of due process. While practitioners consider how to adjust their practice to adapt to this change, advocates should also recognize the opportunity to highlight how this is part of a sustained effort to drive immigrants into the shadows.
