The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in Blanche v. Lau. The case is about the rights of lawful permanent residents who’ve been accused of a crime, a crime liable to get them booted out of the country. Legal experts say if the Supreme Court rules against the defendant that at least 12.8 million green card holders will be affected in the U.S.
The controversial case is about Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen who migrated to the United States legally from China on September 7, 2007. Lau’s problem began when police arrested him on May 7, 2012, and charged him with selling fake Coogi shorts worth almost $300,000 under New Jersey law. For unknown reasons, Lau left the U.S. while awaiting trial, and he came back on June 15, 2012 – when immigration officers at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport stopped him.
Green card holders, who are considered lawful permanent residents, like Lau, possess the freedom to leave the U.S. for short periods of time and freely return without risking their immigration status. The Immigration and Nationality Act says that, in most cases, they should not be seen as trying to get into the United States, but rather as having the right to come back in. One exception is if they have been accused of having “committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” which means the criminal offense(s) involved acts of dishonesty or immorality, like stealing or lying.
Immigration officials discovered pending charges of counterfeiting filed against Lau and decided that he fell under the “moral turpitude” exception. Instead of letting him into the U.S. permanently, they paroled him into the country pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). This point of interest meant that they let him enter the country temporarily “to face prosecution for his counterfeiting offense,” which, in essence, delayed a court decision over whether Lau could stay.
Professor of Law of NYU School of Law Professor Nancy Morawetz wrote in Just Security.org,“This case, Blanche v. Lau, should never have been granted and threatens the security of 12.8 million lawful permanent residents if they travel internationally for work, family emergencies, or other reasons. If you have not heard of the case, it is not surprising. Amid the firehose of litigation in all federal courts about the actions of the Trump administration, it is hard to keep up. The Lau case, however, has massive implications and is worthy of attention.”
For all purposes, understanding the Blanche v. Lau is crucial for anyone concerned with immigration law and the protections afforded to permnanent residents.
Lau Pled Guilty
Lau admitted to trademark counterfeiting a year later, in June 2013. A judge sentenced him to a term of two years of probation. The Department of Homeland Security started the process of sending Lau back to his home country in March 2014, charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Immigration officials said Lau wasn’t eligible to enter the U.S. because he’d broken the terms of his green card. The government acted as if he were not a lawful permanent resident, which forced Lau to prove he was, in fact, eligible to stay in the country instead of the government having to prove he should be deported.
Lau tried to pause his possible removal in a number of ways, such as by asking for a waiver and saying that counterfeiting is a “petty offense” instead of a crime of moral turpitude.
Was Lau Improperly Classified?
Mr. Lau’s challenge to immigration officers’ decision not to let him into the country in June 2012 as a legal green card holder represents the most important point of argument for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider at the height of President Trump’s war on illegal migrants and green card holders. He argued that the removal process couldn’t go on because he had been “improperly classified” when he was paroled and should have been treated like a lawful permanent resident in good standing and allowed to enter.An immigration judge agreed with the government and said that Lau was properly classified as “inadmissible” when he arrived in the United States because he had already committed the crime of trademark counterfeiting. Lau took his case to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which agreed with the judge’s decision.
Lau then asked the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. to look over the BIA’s decision. That appeal worked. The 2nd Circuit agreed that the immigration officers at JFK had wrongly classified Lau. The justices pointed out that the exception the officers used to deny him entry said that “[a]n alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien … has committed” a disqualifying offense. The court said, using a standard of proof from a 2011 BIA decision, that immigration officers could not use that exception unless they had “clear and convincing evidence” that Lau had committed the crime in question.
When Lau Re-entered The USA – Did Immigration Officers Know Firsthand He’d Already Committed a Crime?
Judge Richard J. Sullivan wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that “the INA does not say that [a lawful permanent resident] may be treated as seeking admission when,” as in Lau’s case, “he has been ‘charged with a crime’ or is ‘believed to have committed a crime.'” “[W]e don’t see how charging documents alone, without anything else, could prove DHS’s case that a crime had been committed when [a lawful permanent resident] reentered.”
The court threw out the last order of removal and told the BIA to stop the removal process.
However, it said DHS could start a new deportation case under a different part of the INA because Lau had been “convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude within five years” of coming into the United States.
Sullivan said in the ruling that other federal courts of appeals have said that “the INA is unclear as to when DHS must” show that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime that makes them ineligible for admission. These other courts would have been happy with Lau’s eventual conviction, which proved after the fact that Lau had committed a crime before meeting with immigration officers at JFK. This particular ruling is different from the 2nd Circuit.
Dr. John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General, pointed out this disagreement between the courts of appeals when he asked the Supreme Court to look at the 2nd Circuit’s decision. Earlier in January, the justices agreed to investigate whether immigration officers needed “clear and convincing evidence” that Lau had committed trademark counterfeiting when they let him go—or if the government only needed to show that evidence during removal proceedings.
Are Federal Appeals Court Without Authority to Review Immigration Officers’ Decisions?
In the government’s brief on the merits, Sauer first argued how federal appeals courts cannot review removal orders because they don’t have the power to review the decisions made by immigration officers at the border or ports of entry. He said, “The INA makes it clear that ‘no court shall have jurisdiction to review’ a discretionary parole decision.”
Sauer added that the 2nd Circuit could look into whether Lau was properly paroled, but it couldn’t limit its review to “only the evidence that immigration officers at JFK had at the time,” because “there is nothing in the INA to support that limitation.” Instead, the INA tells immigration judges to pay attention to “‘the evidence produced at the hearing'” in front of them.
Sauer also said that it doesn’t make sense to focus on what can be proven at the time of reentry instead of the “clear and convincing evidence” that will be presented in a future removal proceeding. Immigration officers, he said, have to deal with a lot of aliens coming in every day and make quick decisions about each one. Asking them to hold mini-trials with clear and convincing evidence is not in line with that role. Sauer further said that even if they had more time, they would probably “not have access to relevant evidence.” “The end result would be that lawful permanent residents would no longer be able to get parole, even if they were facing prosecution.”
Lau’s attorneys argued in a brief that the government is “ignoring clear textual limitations” so that it can more easily remove lawful permanent residents from the country. “[I]t would rather be able to pursue inadmissibility proceedings against these residents “than have to pursue the deportations proceedings that the INA makes clear it must follow,” he wrote. Lau also disagreed with the government’s claim that federal appeals courts can’t look at parole decisions. He said, “[T]he INA” lets courts look at “questions of law.” Lau said that one such question is “whether a noncitizen is statutorily eligible for a discretionary decision like parole.”
Lastly, Lau’s argument said that immigration officers are fully capable of determining whether noncitizens have committed a crime that would disqualify them from entering the country and that they have been doing so for decades. The brief says, “If federal officials could check criminal records at the border when wooden ships and oil lamps were common, it’s hard to believe that DHS officials can’t do it now.”
Will a Supreme Court Ruling Affect What Happens After a Green Card Holder Facing Charges Returns to The U.S. From Overseas?
This lightning rod case could change what happens to lawful permanent residents (green-card holders) when they return to the U.S. after traveling abroad if they have unresolved criminal charges or allegations.
For example, if the government wins, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would have more leverage to parole the returning green card residents and use new evidence later in immigration court to argue they should be denied entry, even if they have not been convicted yet. This legal loophole could make it easier to remove people from the country.
if somehow Mr. Lau wins, DHS would need to abide by the guidelines of evidence at the border. Returning residents would be better protected from being treated as new applicants for admission into the country just because of pending charges or suspicion. While the government could still try to remove them, it would more often have to do so through legitimate deportation proceedings, which have different rules and protections than inadmissibility cases.
On a wider scale, this unique immigration case highlights how immigration law often depends on when and how the government must prove wrongdoing, not just whether it happened. More broadly, it’s about the legal protections Congress built for green-card holders and how much flexibility DHS has in treating green card residents at the border after they traveled from overseas.
Oral arguments at Supreme Court are scheduled for Wednesday, April 22, 2026, unless otherwise noted.
Senior NewsBlaze Legal and Special Assignment Reporter C. Walker is also the editor of HoustonNewsToday.com. He previously wrote legal topics for the National Law Journal, Criminal Legal News and DrugWarChronicle.org. Walker can be reached af HoustonNewsToday@yahoo.com
