In a 6-3 opinion released on June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that border officers need not meet a “clear and convincing evidence” standard before treating lawful permanent residents (LPRs) with certain criminal accusations as applicants for admission. The case, Lau v. Garland, involved a returning resident refused entry after a foreign trip because of a prior counterfeit-currency conviction. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett said Congress intended immigration officials to make quick admissibility determinations at ports of entry and could later substantiate charges in removal proceedings. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned that the ruling “invites arbitrary detention of longtime residents.” For global-mobility teams, the decision heightens re-entry risk for LPR employees with unresolved or minor criminal matters. Companies should advise traveling green-card holders to obtain criminal-history reviews before international trips and to carry certified court dispositions. Advance parole remains available in limited situations, but counsel expect CBP to increase secondary inspections. The ruling also signals the Court’s continued deference to executive immigration authority, reinforcing the need for rigorous pre-travel vetting of employee records—especially as states expand definitions of “moral turpitude” crimes.
Source: Associated Press
