Supreme Court Clarifies When Returning Green Card Holders May Be Treated As Applicants For Admission

On June 23, 2026, in a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Blanche v. Lau, clarifying when lawful permanent residents (LPRs) returning from international travel may be treated as “applicants for admission.” In speaking for the Court, Justice Thomas held that border officers do not need “clear and convincing evidence” that a returning LPR committed a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) before treating the individual as seeking admission.

The ruling lowers the evidentiary threshold at the border and may have significant implications for LPRs with pending or prior criminal issues.

The Court’s Framework

The decision adopts a two-step framework under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). First, at the border, a returning LPR may be treated as “seeking admission” if the government determines that the individual has committed a CIMT, even if border officers do not yet have evidence meeting a heightened evidentiary standard at the time of entry. Second, to ultimately sustain removal, the government must establish during removal proceedings that the individual was convicted of the CIMT or admitted to committing the CIMT. The Court emphasized that the INA does not require border officers to apply a “clear and convincing evidence” standard when making initial determinations at the port of entry. That burden applies later in removal proceedings and not at the border, where officers are expected to make prompt, real-time decisions.

The Court also confirmed that a returning LPR may be treated as seeking admission based on having committed a qualifying offense, even if the conviction occurs after the individual’s return to the United States.

Practical Implications for Employers and LPRs

LPRs with pending criminal charges or conduct that could later result in a CIMT may face increased scrutiny at ports of entry. In some cases, they may be paroled into the United States and placed into inadmissibility-based removal proceedings without a final conviction.

As a result, international travel now carries greater immigration risk for LPRs with unresolved criminal exposure. Individuals in this situation may wish to assess travel plans and consult immigration counsel before departing the United States. The decision also has procedural implications. By allowing border officers to classify certain returning LPRs as “seeking admission,” the government may proceed under inadmissibility grounds rather than deportability grounds. This distinction is significant because, in many cases, the burden of proof shifts to the noncitizen in inadmissibility proceedings.

Notably, the Court did not decide whether the underlying offense in this case qualifies as a CIMT, leaving that issue to the lower courts. As a result, CIMT analysis remains highly fact-specific and continues to play a critical role in immigration outcomes.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

The Court’s decision reinforces several important principles. There is no heightened evidentiary burden at the border when determining whether an LPR should be treated as an applicant for admission. Timing also matters; conduct alone, even before a conviction, may trigger admission-based treatment. However, the ultimate removal determination still depends on later proof, such as a conviction or admission. Overall, the decision expands the government’s ability to treat returning LPRs as applicants for admission based on suspected criminal conduct, even before that conduct is established under a heightened evidentiary standard.

Considerations for HR Departments and Employers

For HR teams managing global workforces, the ruling underscores the need to look beyond routine travel logistics if LPR employees have unresolved criminal exposure. A returning employee’s reentry may now involve additional screening, parole processing, or admission-based proceedings, creating uncertainty that employers may need to account for before international travel is approved.

These risks might translate into real business impacts. Delays at the border, parole processing, or initiation of removal proceedings may cause unexpected work interruptions, compliance concerns, and disruptions to project timelines. In addition, reentry outcomes may now be less predictable. Because border officers are not required to apply a high evidentiary standard at the time of entry, employees with pending cases may face inconsistent or uncertain outcomes when returning from travel. Given these risks, employers may want to strengthen pre-travel protocols. This might include identifying employees with potential criminal exposure and requiring consultation with immigration counsel before international travel, particularly for employees in critical roles or those who travel frequently.

Closer coordination between HR, immigration counsel, and (where applicable) criminal defense counsel might become increasingly important. Employers may benefit from conducting proactive risk assessments before approving international travel and developing contingency plans where risks are identified. From a workforce planning perspective, companies might consider limiting nonessential travel, exploring remote work alternatives, or preparing backup staffing strategies to mitigate disruption.

Even short international trips might trigger significant immigration consequences for LPR employees with pending criminal issues. Employers may wish to encourage affected employees to seek legal guidance before traveling.

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.