⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Supreme Court asks what proof the government needs when a green-card holder returns from abroad with a pending criminal charge. Muk Choi Lau faced a trademark-counterfeiting charge when he briefly traveled abroad. Border officers paroled him, allowing physical entry without legally admitting him, and later sought removal after his conviction. A returning lawful permanent resident is ordinarily admitted unless one of six exceptions applies. One covers a crime involving moral turpitude, a category usually involving fraud or seriously wrongful conduct. The Court assumed without deciding that Lau's offense qualified. The government says it may prove the exception later at a removal hearing. Lau says it must do so at the border. The Second Circuit agreed with Lau. The Supreme Court later vacated, six to three, holding that clear and convincing evidence was not required at the border.

Blanche v. Lau (No. 25-429) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 22, 2026.