Green Card, an Old Conviction, and a Trip Coming Up? The Supreme Court Raised the Stakes. Here Is How to Travel Prepared.

For most green card holders, coming home from a trip abroad is the easy part. You hand the officer your card, you answer a question or two, and you are waved through. A recent Supreme Court decision means that, for a smaller group of permanent residents, that moment now deserves more thought and a little preparation. The good news is that preparation is very much within your control.

On June 23, 2026, the Court decided Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429. The case involved a lawful permanent resident with a criminal charge that was still pending and unadjudicated. New Jersey charged Mr. Lau on May 7, 2012. He left the country while awaiting trial, and when he tried to return through JFK on June 15, 2012 an officer treated him as an applicant for admission and paroled him in rather than admitting him. He pleaded guilty more than a year later, on June 24, 2013, and that later plea is what the government used at his hearing to justify how the officer had treated him at the border. The question was how much the government has to prove, and when, before it can treat a returning resident that way. Let us explain what the Court said, who it actually affects, and the concrete steps that keep you in control of your own travel.

The protection most green card holders still have

Start with the reassuring part, because it is true for the large majority of permanent residents. Under the law at 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(13)(C), a green card holder returning from a trip is generally not treated as seeking admission at all. You are regarded as someone who already belongs here, and a brief trip does not put your status on the table. If you have no criminal history, this decision does not change your life.

The statute, however, lists specific exceptions. One of them applies to a resident who has committed certain offenses, including a crime involving moral turpitude. For that narrower group, the trip abroad can reopen the question of admission. Blanche v. Lau is about how that exception works in practice.

What the Court actually decided

Here is the heart of it, in plain terms. The government's process for treating a returning resident as an applicant for admission has two steps. At the first step, commission of a qualifying offense is what allows the government to treat the person as seeking admission. At the second step, a conviction or a formal admission of the crime is what is required to actually find the person inadmissible. Be careful about what that first step requires and when. The Court upheld the charge against Mr. Lau because the government met its burden at the removal hearing, on the evidence produced at that hearing, and in footnote 2 it said it was not deciding whether officers have to satisfy any standard at the border at all. It also said the government may treat a resident as seeking admission as soon as he has committed the offense, even if the conviction comes later.

The fight in Lau was about the first step. The lower court was the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont, and it is the circuit that lost its protection here. The Second Circuit had held that the government needed clear and convincing evidence that the resident actually committed the crime at the time of reentry before it could treat him as an applicant for admission. Muk Choi Lau v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 42 (2d Cir. 2025). The Supreme Court vacated that decision and sent the case back. It held that nothing in the statute imposes that burden at step one. The Fifth and Ninth Circuits had already gone the other way, so for most of the country the rule did not move. For readers here it did. If you fly into JFK or LaGuardia, the circuit you land in is the one whose shield was just removed.

We can be honest that this is not the result we would have wanted. But notice what the decision does not say. It does not say that every green card holder is suddenly at risk. It does not take away your ability to prepare, to challenge a wrongful detention, or to fix an underlying problem before you travel. But be clear about what changes once an officer does treat you as an applicant for admission, because the burden flips. Under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(2)(A) an applicant for admission has to prove that he is admissible. Under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(3)(A) it is the government that has to prove an already-admitted person is deportable. Losing that second rule is the real stake of this case. A person treated as an applicant for admission can also be detained, or paroled in under 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A), which means physically in the country but never admitted. That is what happened to Mr. Lau.

Who should pay close attention

If you are a permanent resident and you have any arrest or conviction in your history, anywhere, at any time, this decision is a signal to plan ahead before international travel. That is true even if the case felt minor, even if it was dismissed, even if it happened decades ago, and even if you have traveled since without a problem. Immigration law treats criminal history in its own surprising way. Offenses that sound small can count as crimes involving moral turpitude, and offenses that sound serious sometimes do not. You cannot tell from the name of the charge alone.

The competition for your attention here is the voice that says you have traveled before and nothing happened, so why worry now. That voice is comforting and it is exactly the wrong guide after Lau. In the Second Circuit the landscape did shift, because the rule that protected returning residents here is gone. What felt safe last year deserves a second look this year.

How to travel prepared, not afraid

This is the part you control, so let us be specific. Before you book any international trip, have an immigration lawyer review your complete criminal history, including the actual court records, not just your memory of what happened. The precise statute you were charged under, and the final disposition, decide everything. A careful review of the actual records is what tells us whether the exception is even in play, and what can be done about it before you book.

If your offense might qualify, there are often moves to make first. Sometimes the right step is post-conviction relief that changes or vacates the old conviction. Sometimes it is applying for a waiver before you go. Sometimes it is gathering documentation and a legal memo to carry with you, so that if you are questioned, your lawyer's analysis is in your hand and not just in your head. And if you are ever held at the airport, know what you do and do not have. Under 8 C.F.R. 292.5(b) there is no right to have a lawyer with you in primary or secondary inspection, unless you have become the focus of a criminal investigation and have been taken into custody. You can still ask to call your lawyer, and you should, but do not plan around getting one. What you can always do is decline to sign anything that gives up your residence, including Form I-407, ask what any document is before you sign it, and call counsel the moment you are released or handed a charging document.

If you want the companion piece on what to do when officers are the ones coming to you, read our guide on what to do when ICE shows up at your door.

Let us look before you leave

The theme of Blanche v. Lau is not that the door slammed shut. It is that the margin for error got thinner for a specific group of people, especially here in the Second Circuit, and that planning ahead matters more than it used to. That is the kind of problem this office works on. For twenty years we have gone through permanent residents' records with them before they travel, and we have stood beside the ones who got stopped anyway. No lawyer can tell you what a border officer will do, and after this decision even less so. What we can do is read the record and tell you what we find.

If you have a green card and any criminal history, do not let a vacation turn into a fight to come home. Let us review your record while there is time to act on what we find. The consultation is free, and we will talk it through in English, Spanish, French, Creole, or Mandarin. A short conversation now is better than finding out at the airport.