Blanche v. Lau
The court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a Lawful Permanent Resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.
146 S. Ct. 1981 · No. 25-429 · 2025 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 23, 2026 · argued Apr 22, 2026
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: permanent residence
Majority opinion: Clarence Thomas
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Vacated and remanded. Blanche won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Blanche was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Blanche v. Lau, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a Lawful Permanent Resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their provisional Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2025 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Clarence ThomasWrote the majority opinion
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Ketanji JacksonWrote a dissent
Sonia SotomayorJoined a dissent
Elena KaganJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The 2025 scores are provisional. The official Martin–Quinn release does not cover this term yet, so the scores are copied from Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin & Michael J. Nelson, Provisional Data Report on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 Term, Table 3.1 (scores by Kevin Quinn), published 2026-06-30. They will be replaced by the official scores when those come out, and may change. The median line is the middle of these nine scores.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- BlancheAttorney general of the United States, or his office
- Respondent
- LauAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 23, 2026DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: vacated and remanded. Blanche won.
- Apr 22, 2026ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: vacated.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
5 other argued cases since 1946 on immigration and naturalization: permanent residence, newest first.
- Sanchez v. Mayorkas141 S. Ct. 1809Jun 7, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1809Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Texas579 U.S. 547Jun 23, 2016 · 579 U.S. 547Civil rights4–45–4 band
- Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio573 U.S. 41Jun 9, 2014 · 573 U.S. 41Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Panagis Vartelas, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General566 U.S. 257Mar 28, 2012 · 566 U.S. 257Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Mrvica v. Esperdy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service376 U.S. 560Mar 30, 1964 · 376 U.S. 560Civil rights6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.