Supreme Court green-card case

The Supreme Court heard arguments on April 22 over when border officers can treat a returning green-card holder as if he is seeking entry from scratch. (supremecourt.gov) The case is *Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau*, No. 25-429. The justices agreed in January to review a March 4, 2025, Second Circuit ruling in Lau’s favor and set the case for argument on April 22, 2026. (supremecourt.gov) Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a lawful permanent resident who returns from a short trip abroad is generally not “regarded as seeking an admission.” One exception applies if the resident “has committed” an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), including certain crimes involving moral turpitude. (supremecourt.gov) That wording controls who carries the burden in removal court. If the government treats the person as an applicant for admission, the resident may have to prove eligibility to enter; if not, the government must prove deportability instead. (scotusblog.com) Lau’s case began in May 2012, when New Jersey charged him with selling nearly $300,000 in counterfeit Coogi clothing. After a trip abroad, he returned through John F. Kennedy International Airport in June 2012, and immigration officers paroled him into the country rather than admitting him as a returning permanent resident. (scotusblog.com) Lau later pleaded guilty in June 2013 to trademark counterfeiting and received two years of probation. In March 2014, the Department of Homeland Security moved to remove him as inadmissible at the time of his return, instead of charging him as a resident already admitted to the country. (scotusblog.com) The legal fight is about timing and proof. The question presented asks whether, to remove a resident who was later paroled into the country, the government had to possess clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the resident’s last reentry. (supremecourt.gov) The Board of Immigration Appeals said in *Matter of NEMIS* in 2021 that the Department of Homeland Security bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that this exception for returning residents applies. Lau argued the government needed that level of proof when he arrived at the airport, not years later in removal proceedings. (justice.gov) The government told the justices that officers’ border decisions do not need court review at that front-end stage and that any required proof can be supplied in the later removal case. Bloomberg Law reported that several liberal justices pressed on what would stop officers from paroling residents without enough cause, while Justice Samuel Alito pushed back on treating bad-faith hypotheticals as the baseline. (news.bloomberglaw.com) The practical stakes reach beyond Lau’s trademark case. Bloomberg Law reported that broader Department of Homeland Security discretion could make overseas travel riskier for green-card holders with pending charges or other criminal exposure, because a temporary parole at the airport can change the legal track that follows them into removal court. (news.bloomberglaw.com)