Traveling After Criminal Charges? What Permanent Residents Need to Know

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an important immigration decision affecting permanent residents (green card holders) who travel outside the United States after being charged with certain crimes.

In Blanche v. Lau, the Supreme Court ruled that green card holders who travel outside the United States may face additional immigration scrutiny when returning if they have been charged with certain crimes listed in the immigration laws.

The Legal Issue

Permanent residents are generally not subject to in depth questioning when they return from a temporary trip abroad. However, there are exceptions. One exception applies when the person has committed certain offenses that make them inadmissible to the United States. This including crimes involving moral turpitude (fraud, theft, some assaults, etc.) and some drug-related offenses.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether immigration officers must have "clear and convincing" evidence that the person committed the crime before they can question them. This is a high standard, and requires about 75% certainty.

The Supreme Court's Decision

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the immigration statute does not require border officers to possess clear and convincing evidence. The Court did not say how much evidence is sufficient.

The Court identified two separate steps with different rules and standards:

1. Determining whether to subject the permanent resident to additional questioning.

   • The immigration officer decides this at the port of entry.

   • The standard to begin questioning is no longer "clear and convincing evidence."

   • If after questioning, the officer decides the offense makes the permanent resident "inadmissible," they will file paperwork with the immigration court to begin deportation proceedings.

   • This may or may not involve detention.

     
     

2. Determining whether the person can actually be denied entry based on a conviction of or admission to the offense.

   • The immigration judge decides this after a hearing.

   • Individuals are entitled to representation by an attorney, and the process can take months or years.

   • Depending on the circumstances, the permanent resident may or may not be detained during this process.

Why This Matters

This decision highlights an important risk for green card holders who travel internationally after a criminal conviction, or even while criminal charges are pending.

Many permanent residents assume that possessing a green card guarantees smooth reentry into the United States after a short trip abroad. However, immigration consequences can arise even before a criminal case is fully resolved.

Following this decision, immigration officers have greater flexibility to question permanent residents when there is reason to believe they committed a covered offense.

Practical Advice for Green Card Holders

If you are a permanent resident who has ever been arrested or charged with a crime:

• Consult with both a criminal defense attorney and an immigration attorney before traveling internationally.

• Do not assume that a pending criminal case has no immigration consequences.

• Do not assume that previous successful international travel means you will have no difficulty in the future.

• Understand that even a brief trip abroad can create immigration complications that might not otherwise exist.

• Seek legal advice before leaving the United States if there is any concern that a criminal charge could affect your immigration status.

Final Thoughts

The Supreme Court's decision in Blanche v. Lau is a reminder that international travel can create significant immigration risks for lawful permanent residents who have criminal issues in their history.

Green card holders facing criminal charges should carefully evaluate the immigration consequences of travel before leaving the United States.

Source: 

• Blanche v. Lau, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), decided June 23, 2026.

This article is for general informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal advice.