Episode Details

Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau | Case No. 25-429 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 22, 2026 | Decided: June 23, 2026

Overview: The Court addressed whether border officers must possess clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a crime before stripping that person of already-admitted status and treating the holder as an applicant for admission.

Question Presented: Whether the INA requires border officers to possess clear and convincing evidence of a crime before treating a green card holder as seeking admission.

Posture: Second Circuit vacated removal order; Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve circuit split.

Main Arguments:

• Petitioner (Government):

• (1) The INA imposes no evidentiary burden on border officers making on-the-spot classification decisions;
• (2) the two-step framework requires crime commission at step one and conviction at step two, both satisfied here;
• (3) the government met the clear-and-convincing standard at the removal hearing through Lau's guilty plea.

• Respondent (Lau):

• (1) The INA's "shall not" command required the government to determine whether an exception applied before treating a returning green card holder as seeking admission;
• (2) the statute's present-perfect tense confirms border officers must make that determination at the moment of reentry, not later;
• (3) a conviction entered after the parole decision cannot retroactively justify the border officer's classification call.

Holding: The INA does not require a border officer to possess clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating the resident as an applicant for admission.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Second Circuit judgment vacated and remanded.

Majority Reasoning:

• (1) Section 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) requires only crime commission — not conviction — at step one to trigger "seeking admission" status; conviction or admission of guilt at step two establishes inadmissibility;
• (2) the INA nowhere imposes a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on border officers making on-the-spot classification calls;
• (3) the BIA's clear-and-convincing standard applies at removal hearings — not at the border — and the government satisfied it through Lau's guilty plea.

Separate Opinions: • Justice Jackson (dissenting, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan): The INA's "shall not" command required the government to determine whether an exception applied before reclassifying a returning green card holder as seeking admission. The majority permits post hoc justification, gutting the statutory protection Congress built for green card holders.

Implications:

• (1) Green card holders face possible parole at any border crossing if a pending criminal charge appears in federal databases — no evidentiary floor required at the moment of the call;
• (2) courts must still resolve what standard — if any — governs border officers' parole decisions;
• (3) the Second Circuit must decide on remand whether Lau's conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Fine Print:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v): "An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seekin