Blanche v. Lau

Judgment Issued.

Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.

The Immigration and Nationality Act 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. [609/1]

Argued. For petitioner: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C.

Reply of petitioner filed. (Distributed)

CIRCULATED

Brief amici curiae of Immigration Law Professors filed. (Distributed)

Brief amici curiae of Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, et al. filed. (Distributed)

Brief amici curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)

Brief of respondent Muk Lau filed.

Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and available with the Clerk.

Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Brief amicus curiae of Federation for American Immigration Reform filed.

Joint appendix filed.

Brief for the petitioner filed.

SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 22, 2026.

As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.

Petition GRANTED.

Reply of petitioner Pamela Bondi filed. (Distributed)

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.

Brief of respondent Muk Lau in opposition filed.

Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 8, 2025.

Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 7, 2025 to December 8, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.

Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.