The Federalist Society

Optional Login

Have an account?

Sign in

Email

Password


Forgot password?

Proceed as Guest

Continue
Our website is currently undergoing updates, some links may no longer work and content may change. Please check back soon.

Blanche v. Lau

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident from China, briefly traveled abroad while a New Jersey trademark-counterfeiting charge was pending against him; on his return, border officers treated him as an applicant for admission and paroled him into the country rather than admitting him. After he pleaded guilty, the government sought his removal on inadmissibility grounds for a crime involving moral turpitude. The Second Circuit vacated the removal order, holding that the government needed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of his reentry, not merely a pending charge.

Questions

  1. To remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, must the government prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States?

Conclusions

  1. On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held 6-3 in Blanche v. Lau that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to possess clear and convincing evidence at the time of a lawful permanent resident's reentry that the resident committed a disqualifying offense before treating the resident as an applicant for admission.

A Seat at the Sitting - October 2023
FedSoc Forums

A Seat at the Sitting - October 2023

Karen Harned, Vikrant P. Reddy, Amanda Salz, Brian C. Johnson

The October Docket in 90 Minutes or Less

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting...