This only matters for green card holders with an arrest, charge, or conviction involving conduct that could affect admissibility, even something old or already resolved. If that does not describe anyone on your team, there is nothing new for you to do here beyond a general heads-up.
Here is what happened. A green card holder named Muk Choi Lau left the country while facing a pending criminal charge in New Jersey, then tried to come back through the airport. Border officers stopped treating him as a returning resident and instead treated him as if he were requesting entry for the first time. Lower courts said the government needed clear and convincing evidence, a high legal bar, that Lau had actually committed the crime before doing that. On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court disagreed, 6-3, in a case formally called Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429.
The Court said officers do not need that high bar of proof at the border. They can treat a returning green card holder as seeking admission for the first time if there is reason to believe a specific legal exception applies, and the government's higher burden of proof only kicks in later, if the case moves into a formal removal hearing. In Lau's own case, the government later met that higher burden using his own guilty plea to the counterfeiting charge, entered after he had already been paroled into the country. In practice, that means a green card holder with a relevant arrest, charge, or conviction can face real scrutiny the moment they land, well before anything is finally proven.
- On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429, that border officers do not need clear and convincing evidence of a crime before treating a returning green card holder as someone requesting entry for the first time, rather than a returning resident.
- This is a low risk issue overall. It only applies to green card holders with an arrest, charge, or conviction that could affect admissibility, and most of your employees will not fit that description.
- Do not ask employees about criminal history as part of travel approval without employment counsel's guidance. The safer move is a general notice to your green card holder population, not individual conversations.
- If an employee does have something in their past, even something old or minor, the fix is simple: point them to immigration counsel before they book a flight.
What this means for you
You probably think of a green card as a settled matter. Once someone on your team gets one, you stop tracking their immigration status, because there is no filing deadline left to manage. This ruling reopens a small but real form of risk for that same group, and it is risk you usually cannot see coming, since personal and family travel rarely runs through you or a travel desk.
If one of your green card holder employees gets flagged at the border, here is what that can look like for you as the employer:
- A longer secondary inspection, which can mean hours of delay or a missed connecting flight.
- Being paroled into the country instead of formally admitted, and placed into removal proceedings, where the government still has to prove its case rather than simply asserting it.
Any of these can mean an employee is unexpectedly out for days or longer, with little warning to you or their manager. That is the real operational risk here, not a change to their green card status itself.
What actually counts here
This is not about a speeding ticket or a parking violation. The ruling is about arrests, charges, or convictions that could count as conduct that affects admissibility under immigration law, things like a DUI, a theft or shoplifting charge, a fraud related charge, or a conviction from years ago that was already fully served.
Whether a specific offense actually qualifies depends on the details of the charge and the law it falls under, which is a legal question, not something you or your employees should try to answer on your own. If any of the above sounds familiar to someone on your team, that is the signal for them to talk to an immigration attorney before they book a flight, not a sign that they are automatically at risk.
What you should do now
Step 1: Send one general notice, not individual questions
Do not ask your green card holder employees, broadly or selectively, whether they have a criminal record as part of travel approval. Doing that without employment counsel's guidance creates discrimination risk. The safer operational approach is a general notice: a short, plain-language message to your green card holder population, identified from your I-9 or immigration case records rather than assumptions about nationality or background, letting them know about this ruling and encouraging anyone with an outstanding legal matter, however small, to check with an immigration attorney before they travel internationally.
Step 2: Make sure the notice reaches personal travel too
Do not limit this to your business travel policy. A wedding, a funeral, or a holiday trip carries the same exposure as a work trip, and those are the trips you are least likely to hear about in advance.
Step 3: If someone reaches out, hand them off, do not evaluate
If an employee tells you they might be affected, your job is to connect them with immigration counsel, not to ask follow up questions or judge how serious it sounds. Keep that conversation completely separate from anything related to their job performance or employment status.
Step 4: Encourage people to raise this early
A real legal review can take time, especially if the attorney needs to track down an old case record. Encourage employees to bring this up as soon as they start planning a trip, not the week before they leave.
What this does not change
Most of your green card holders are completely unaffected by this. The ruling does not revoke anyone's green card, and it does not decide whether any specific past charge counts as serious enough to matter, courts will still work that out case by case. What changed is narrower: border officers now have more room to question a green card holder with relevant history the moment they land, instead of needing to prove their case on the spot. The Supreme Court did not even decide that question for Lau himself. It sent his case back to the lower court to work out.
Common questions from HR teams
No, not in the way it affects green card holders. Employees on nonimmigrant visas are already treated as requesting entry every time they travel, so this ruling does not change their situation. It matters specifically because green card holders normally have stronger protection against that treatment, and this decision narrows it.
A dismissal or the passage of time does not automatically remove the risk. Border officers can treat someone as seeking admission based on a reasonable determination that a qualifying offense occurred, even without a conviction at that moment, though the government still has to prove its case later if the matter goes to a removal hearing. Whether a specific old matter still creates exposure needs an individualized review by an immigration attorney, not a guess from HR or the employee.
Not without employment counsel's guidance. Asking broadly or selectively about criminal history as part of travel approval carries discrimination risk. The safer operational approach is a general notice to your green card holder population, letting anyone with a relevant history reach out to immigration counsel on their own.
Not automatically. The ruling changes how much proof border officers need before treating someone as requesting entry for the first time. It does not, by itself, take away anyone's green card. The employees with real exposure are those with an actual arrest, charge, or conviction in their past, not green card holders in general.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Whether a specific employee's history creates travel risk depends on their individual facts. Consult qualified immigration counsel before making decisions about international travel for your sponsored workforce.
Get actionable insights for workforce planning. Delivered once a week.
.svg)
