Blanche v. Lau: Supreme Court Weighs the Rights of Returning Green Card Holders

What Happened at the Supreme Court

On Wednesday, April 22, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429. The case asks a question that sounds technical at first but has real consequences for the 12.8 million lawful permanent residents (green card holders) who live in the United States, including tens of thousands in Massachusetts who travel back to Brazil, Haiti, Cape Verde, and other home countries to visit family.

The question in front of the Justices is this: when a green card holder returns to the United States and a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer suspects the traveler may have committed a crime abroad or before leaving, what must the government prove, and when, before it can treat that traveler as a new applicant for admission rather than as a returning resident? In practical terms, may CBP place a green card holder on temporary parole based on a suspicion, and then build its case later? Or must the government already have clear and convincing evidence of a disqualifying offense at the moment the person steps back into the airport?

The Facts of the Case

Muk Choi Lau became a lawful permanent resident in September 2007 after emigrating from China. In May 2012, New Jersey authorities charged him with selling counterfeit Coogi clothing worth approximately $300,000. While he was awaiting trial, Lau left the United States. When he returned in June 2012 and arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, CBP did not admit him as a returning resident in the usual way. Instead, the officer placed him on parole, a temporary status that leaves the door open to later removal.

Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge. In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against him, treating him as an applicant for admission who was inadmissible because of his crime. Lau challenged that treatment, arguing that the government should have had clear and convincing evidence of a disqualifying offense at the time of his reentry if it was going to strip him of the protections a returning green card holder ordinarily receives.

The Second Circuit ruled in Lau's favor at 130 F.4th 42. The government sought Supreme Court review, and the Justices granted certiorari on January 9, 2026.

Why This Case Matters for Every Green Card Holder

Under current law, a returning lawful permanent resident is generally not treated as a new applicant for admission. That is an important protection. It means the government usually cannot reopen the admissibility question when an LPR comes back from a trip. The statute lists a short set of exceptions, and one of them is when the person has committed certain criminal offenses. The fight in Blanche v. Lau is about how firm the government's evidence must be to invoke that exception at the port of entry.

If the Court sides with Lau, CBP will need to come to the airport with clear and convincing evidence before stripping a returning green card holder of the presumption of admission. If the Court sides with the government, as the petitioner argues, a CBP officer's suspicion or satisfaction that something questionable has happened could be enough to place an LPR on parole and trigger a removal case later. That second outcome would give the government far more flexibility to detain and question returning residents and to pursue removal based on evidence developed after the fact.

According to reporting on the April 22 argument, the Court appeared closely divided. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett expressed sympathy for the government's position, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and other members of the liberal wing pressed the government on how broadly its theory could be used against returning residents. Shay Dvoretzky argued for Lau. Sopan Joshi argued for the government. A decision is expected by the end of the Court's current term in late June or early July 2026.

Why This Matters for Massachusetts and Brazilian Families

Massachusetts is home to the largest Brazilian immigrant community in the United States and a very large Haitian population. Many of my clients are lawful permanent residents who travel internationally every year. Parents travel back to Brazil to see aging relatives. Families fly home for funerals, weddings, and baptisms. Haitian green card holders return to see children and grandchildren they support. These are the fabric of immigrant family life.

Any Supreme Court decision that lowers the evidentiary bar for CBP to place a returning green card holder on parole will hit communities like ours hardest. Even today, travelers with older criminal records, pending charges, dismissed cases, or unresolved questions about past conduct can face secondary inspection, long questioning, and, in some cases, placement on parole with a notice to appear in immigration court. A broader rule would almost certainly expand how often that happens.

Practical Steps for Green Card Holders Before the Court Rules

The Court has not ruled yet. Current law is still the law. That gives green card holders a window to prepare. Here is what I recommend to clients who plan to travel before the summer decision.

1. Audit Your Criminal History Before You Book a Trip

Even if you think an old case is resolved, pull your court records and talk to an immigration attorney. Some state convictions, including many minor offenses, can be grounds for inadmissibility. Some dispositions look like dismissals on paper and are treated as convictions for immigration purposes. A short consultation can tell you whether a past case could be used against you at the border.

2. Carry Documentation, Not Assumptions

If your case was dismissed, carry a certified copy of the disposition. If you completed a diversion program, carry the order of discharge. If you received a pardon, carry the pardon paperwork. CBP officers at the border have broad authority to ask questions. Calm, documented answers are your strongest tool.

3. Know Your Rights at the Port of Entry

You have the right to remain silent about matters beyond your identity and reason for travel, though doing so may lead to additional scrutiny or secondary inspection. You should never sign a document you do not understand. If CBP asks you to sign Form I-407 (Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status), you are not required to sign it. Signing that form gives up your green card voluntarily, and you should never do that without talking to an attorney first.

4. Do Not Travel if You Have a Pending Criminal Matter

If you have an open criminal case, even a minor one, talk to your criminal defense lawyer and an immigration attorney before leaving the country. Traveling while a case is pending is one of the most common ways green card holders end up in parole status at reentry and in removal proceedings later.

5. Keep Your Green Card Current and Carry Supporting Evidence of Ties

Carry your valid green card, and bring secondary evidence that you live in the United States: a lease or mortgage, utility bills, tax returns, employment verification, and school records for your children. If CBP questions whether you have abandoned your residence, this paperwork makes the conversation shorter.

What Happens Next

The Justices will now deliberate in private and circulate draft opinions. A decision is expected before the Court adjourns for the summer, most likely in late June or early July 2026. Once the opinion is issued, we will know one of three things: the Court required clear and convincing evidence at reentry (the best outcome for green card holders), the Court adopted the government's broader theory (the outcome that raises the stakes at every border crossing), or the Court issued a narrower ruling that leaves parts of the question for another day.

Whatever the outcome, I expect to publish an update here in both English and Portuguese within 48 hours of the decision, with practical guidance tailored to our community in Massachusetts.

Frequently Asked Questions