A new Supreme Court decision has changed the risks of international travel for lawful permanent residents — even if you have traveled before without any problems.

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Blanche v. Lau that quietly changes the rules for green card holders who leave the country and come back. At Bilbao Law, we want every one of our clients and community members to understand what happened — and why we are now urging caution before any international trip.

The short version: if you are a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and you have any criminal matter in your past — even an old one, a minor one, or one you thought was finished — please speak with an immigration attorney before you travel.

What the Supreme Court decided

When a green card holder returns from a trip abroad, the law normally treats you as someone who is already admitted to the United States. You are not treated like a brand-new visitor asking to be let in. That protection comes from the immigration statute (INA § 101(a)(13)(C)), and it matters a great deal, because someone who is “already admitted” is much harder to remove than someone who is “seeking admission.”

There is an exception, however. The government can treat a returning resident as “seeking admission” if that person committed certain crimes — including a category the law calls a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).

Before this decision, the federal appeals court in New York (the Second Circuit) had said that an officer at the airport or port of entry needed clear and convincing evidence that the traveler actually committed such a crime before downgrading them to “seeking admission.”

The Supreme Court reversed that. Writing for a 6–3 majority, Justice Thomas held that the law does not require a border officer to have that strong level of proof at the port of entry. The Court described a two-step process:

• At the port of entry — the airport, land crossing, or seaport where you arrive: the officer only needs a basis to believe you committed a qualifying offense in order to treat you as “seeking admission.” There is no high evidence standard at this stage.
• Later, in immigration court: the government still has to prove its case to actually remove you — but by then you may have already been detained, paroled in, or left in legal limbo for a long time.

In dissent, Justice Jackson (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) warned that the ruling hands the government “a massive blank check,” allowing it to place a resident’s status in limbo based on suspicion or a pending charge, and to justify that decision only after the fact.

Why this matters even if you’ve traveled before with no problems

This is the part we most want our community to hear. The fact that you have traveled in the past and returned without any issue does not mean you are safe now. The legal landscape has shifted, and officers at airports and ports of entry now have far more latitude to stop a returning resident, take the green card, and start the process — based on much less than before.

A trip that was routine a year ago may not be routine today.

Who is most at risk

• You should be especially careful if you are a green card holder and any of the following is true:
• You have a past arrest, even if you were never convicted.
• You have an old conviction, even one from many years or decades ago.
• You have a pending criminal charge.
• You have a matter you believe was dismissed, expunged, or resolved long ago.
• You took a plea deal that kept you out of jail but may still count against you under immigration law.

Whether a particular offense counts as a “crime involving moral turpitude” is a technical and often-disputed legal question. A case that looked small in criminal court — a shoplifting charge, a theft, a fraud allegation, certain assaults — can still create serious immigration consequences. Ordinary traffic tickets generally are not CIMTs, but please do not assume your situation is harmless. This is exactly the kind of question an immigration attorney should review before you book a trip.

What is still uncertain

The Supreme Court did not spell out the minimum a border officer must have before acting. It is therefore genuinely unclear how aggressively this will be applied — for example, whether a years-old arrest that never led to a conviction could be used against you on your way back into the country. That uncertainty is one of the biggest reasons we are advising caution: when the rules are this open-ended, the safest course is to know your own risk before you travel.

What this can mean in practice

If an officer at the airport or port of entry decides to treat you as “seeking admission,” you could face some combination of the following:

• Being sent to secondary inspection for extended questioning.
• Having your status changed to that of an applicant for admission , where the burden shifts toward you to show why you should be allowed to keep your status.
• Being detained — please read the important warning below.
• Being paroled into the country on a temporary basis while your case plays out.
• Being placed in removal (deportation) proceedings on inadmissibility grounds.

The biggest risk: mandatory detention

This is the consequence we most want you to understand. Once you are treated as an applicant for admission , you are generally subject to mandatory detention — meaning the government is not required to release you on bond while your case is being decided. In recent practice, the government has been applying this very aggressively and has frequently refused to release people.

In plain terms: if you are stopped on your return, you could be held in detention for the entire length of the legal fight — and these cases can take months, or even longer , to resolve. Even if you eventually win, you may spend that whole time detained and separated from your family, your job, and your home. This is why the decision about whether to travel should be made carefully, and with an attorney, before you leave.

Bilbao Law’s advice right now

Because the risks are real and the rules are unsettled, our guidance is straightforward:

If you are a lawful permanent resident with any criminal matter in your past — no matter how old or how minor — we strongly recommend that you do not travel internationally at this time until you have spoken with an immigration attorney about your specific situation.

If you do need to travel, talk with us first so you understand your risk, know your rights at the port of entry, and carry the documentation that may help you. The right preparation can make a meaningful difference.

Your green card represents years of work and sacrifice. Please do not let a single trip put it at risk before you have all the facts.

We are here to help

If you have a green card and a past arrest, a pending charge, an old conviction, or simply questions about how this decision affects your travel plans, call Bilbao Law at (904) 300-0825 to schedule a confidential consultation. We will review your situation, help you understand your rights and responsibilities, and advise you on whether — and how — to travel safely.

Bilbao Law LLC

301 W. Bay Street, Suite 1449, Jacksonville, FL 32202

Call us: (904) 300-0825

bilbaolaw.com



Please stay safe.