Supreme Court of the United States
Blanche v. Lau
June 23, 2026146 S.Ct. 1981
Summary
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, held that the INA does not require border officers to possess clear and convincing evidence that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an applicant for admission. Commission of the qualifying crime, rather than a preentry conviction, triggers the statutory exception; Lau’s subsequent guilty plea supplied clear and convincing evidence at his removal hearing of his earlier criminal conduct. The Court vacated and remanded without deciding whether his offense involved moral turpitude. Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented, arguing that the Government must establish the exception at the border and cannot justify its classification through later-acquired evidence.
Holding
- Whether border officers must have clear and convincing evidence of a qualifying crime before treating a returning lawful permanent resident as seeking admission.. The INA imposes no such clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement at the border. Lau’s later guilty plea could establish at the removal hearing that he committed the crime before reentry.
- Whether a qualifying conviction must precede reentry to trigger §1101(a)(13)(C)(v).. A returning lawful permanent resident may be regarded as seeking admission upon commission of a qualifying crime even if conviction occurs later.
Docket 25-429