Episode
Opinion Summary: Blanche v. Lau | Seize Green Cards First and Prove Why Later
- Podcast
- The High Court Report
- Published
- Jun 28, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 948
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/the-high-court-report-7304353/episodes/opinion-summary-blanche-v-lau-seize-green-cards-first-and-prove-why-later/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/opinion-summary-blanche-v-lau-seize-green-cards-first-and-prove-why-later.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau | Case No. 25-429 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 22, 2026 | Decided: June 23, 2026 Overview: The Court addressed whether border officers must possess clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a crime before stripping that person of already-admitted status and treating the holder as an applicant for admission. Question Presented: Whether the INA requires border officers to possess clear and convincing evidence of a crime before treating a green card holder as seeking admission. Posture: Second Circuit vacated removal order; Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve circuit split. Main Arguments: • Petitioner (Government): (1) The INA imposes no evidentiary burden on border officers making on-the-spot classification decisions; (2) the two-step framework requires crime commission at step one and conviction at step two, both satisfied here; (3) the government met the clear-and-convincing standard at the removal hearing through Lau's guilty plea. • Respondent (Lau): (1) The INA's "shall not" command required the government to determine whether an exception applied before treating a returning green card holder as seeking admission; (2) the statute's present-perfect tense confirms border officers must make that determination at the moment of reentry, not later; (3) a conviction entered after the parole decision cannot retroactively justify the border officer's classification call. Holding: The INA does not require a border officer to possess clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating the resident as an applicant for admission. Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice Rober…