On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision allowing immigration officers to consider pending criminal charges when determining the reentry of green card holders into the United States. The ruling stemmed from the case of Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who faced trademark counterfeiting charges in New Jersey in May 2012. After temporarily leaving the U.S. for China, Lau attempted to return in June 2012 but was paroled into the country pending the resolution of his criminal case.
The Supreme Court clarified that lawful permanent residents are generally considered admitted to the country but can be treated as 'seeking admission' if they have committed certain offenses, including crimes involving moral turpitude. Lau's guilty plea in June 2013 led to removal proceedings initiated by the government, which argued that he was inadmissible due to his conviction. An immigration judge initially found Lau removable, but an appeals court vacated the order, stating that the government needed clear evidence of Lau's crime at the border.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that the government correctly regarded Lau as an applicant for admission and did not need to provide clear and convincing evidence of his crime at the border. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that the ruling allows the government to classify lawful permanent residents as seeking admission based on later convictions, potentially undermining the statutory protections for these individuals. The court did not decide whether Lau's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude and returned that aspect of the case for further review.