Three weeks after hearing oral argument in the high-profile birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court turned its attention to another immigration matter with potentially sweeping consequences for lawful permanent residents. On April 22, 2026, the Court heard oral arguments in Blanche v. Lau, a case that has attracted far less media coverage than its predecessor but may ultimately affect a far larger population: the more than 13 million green card holders currently living and working in the United States.
If the government prevails, Blanche v. Lau could fundamentally alter the rights green card holders are afforded when returning to the United States after international travel, and, in some cases, expose them to mandatory immigration detention.
Background: How Mr. Lau’s Case Reached the Supreme Court
Mr. Lau is a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident (LPR) (also commonly known as a green card holder) who had traveled internationally on multiple occasions without incident. In 2012, when he sought re-entry at a U.S. international airport, he carried a valid green card but also a pending criminal charge for a non-serious offense. A border official, aware of the charge, concluded that Mr. Lau might fall within one of six statutory exceptions that allow the government to treat a returning LPR not as a resident coming home, but as someone “seeking admission” for the first time.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), those six statutory exceptions apply when a returning LPR:
- Has abandoned or relinquished LPR status;
- Has been absent from the United States for a continuous period exceeding 180 days;
- Has engaged in certain illegal activity after departing the United States;
- Has departed the United States while under legal process seeking removal or extradition;
- Has committed a specified criminal offense under the INA; or
- Has attempted to enter the United States without inspection or authorization.
Invoking exception number five — the alleged commission of a criminal offense — the border official declined to admit Mr. Lau under his LPR status, classified him as an “applicant for admission”, and paroled him into the United States. The government subsequently initiated removal proceedings against him under the inadmissibility framework of INA § 212, rather than the deportability framework of INA § 237 — a distinction with significant procedural consequences.
What the Second Circuit Decided
After an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled against him, Mr. Lau appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He argued that the government cannot treat a returning LPR as “seeking admission” without clear and convincing evidence at the time of entry that one of the six statutory exceptions actually applies. The government countered that no such threshold was required at the border; the evidentiary standard could be satisfied later, during removal proceedings.
The Second Circuit sided with Mr. Lau. In Lau v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 42 (2d Cir. 2025), the court held:
- The government must have a sufficient evidentiary basis at the time it makes a classification decision, and it cannot rely on evidence developed after the fact to justify treating an LPR as seeking admission.
- A pending criminal charge alone does not constitute clear and convincing evidence sufficient to trigger one of the six exceptions.
- The INA makes clear that the default rule is that returning LPRs are not seeking admission. Allowing DHS to take a “wait-and-see” approach, contingent on whether a conviction eventually materializes, effectively nullifies that statutory presumption.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address two questions: the timing of the government’s classification decision, and possibly the applicable standard of proof.
Oral Argument and What the Justices Signaled
At oral argument, the Court focused substantially on whether, if border officials are permitted to exercise this classification authority, a heightened standard of proof should govern. But the Court did not appear inclined to resolve that question. Based on the tenor of the argument, the Court seemed likely to accept the government’s central contention: that parole into the United States functions as a permissible interim bridge, allowing the government time to develop the evidentiary record before a formal removal hearing.
In other words, the Court appeared prepared to let border officials make an initial and potentially thinly supported classification determination, with the full evidentiary record to be established later in proceedings. That framing has serious implications.
Three Practical Consequences for Green Card Holders
Should the Supreme Court rule in the government’s favor, as the oral argument suggests it may, green card holders should be aware of three concrete consequences.
- A Lower Bar for Reclassification at the Border
The evidence that triggered Mr. Lau’s reclassification — a pending, unresolved criminal charge — was, by any measure, thin. A government win would confirm that border officials can act on similarly limited information, with the burden of disproving inadmissibility later shifted to the foreign national rather than to the government. - A Shift in the Burden of Proof
Under the deportability framework, which normally applies to returning LPRs, the government bears the burden of proving that a resident is removable. Under the inadmissibility framework triggered by a “seeking admission” classification, that burden can shift to the foreign national. A ruling for the government in Lau would effectively allow a border official’s snap determination to strip a green card holder of this foundational procedural protection. - Mandatory Detention
This is perhaps the most significant practical consequence. An LPR is ordinarily subject to discretionary detention under INA § 236, meaning a judge can weigh the circumstances and grant release on bond. But the government has argued, successfully in several circuit courts, that individuals classified as “seeking admission,” including those paroled into the United States, are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Parolees are not considered “admitted” under the statute and therefore fall within that mandatory detention provision. If the government prevails in Lau and a court does not impose any evidentiary standard, a returning green card holder — particularly one with a complex immigration or criminal history — might be reclassified at the border, paroled in, and held in mandatory detention pending a full hearing. The only vehicle for release, in that scenario, would be a federal habeas corpus petition.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court typically issues decisions in May or June. Predicting the outcome from oral argument alone is always uncertain, but the signals from Blanche v. Lau are significant enough that green card holders, particularly those who travel internationally and have any prior contact with the criminal justice system, should consult with immigration counsel now.
The Klasko team is closely monitoring this case and all related immigration litigation. We will continue to provide timely updates as the decision approaches.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]