Oral Argument: Bondi v. Lau

Bondi v. Lau (formerly named Bondi v. Lau) | Case No. 25-429 | Docket Link: Here

Oral Advocates:

• Petitioner (United States): Sopan Joshi of the Department of Justice
• Respondent (Muk Choi Lau): Shay Dvoretzky of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Question Presented: Whether the government, to remove a lawful permanent resident as inadmissible after paroling him into the United States, must prove it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the disqualifying offense at the time of reentry.

Overview: A green-card holder returns from a brief trip abroad facing only unproven criminal charges. The government paroles him in, waits for his conviction, then invokes the inadmissibility track. The Supreme Court now decides whether that sequence respects the INA's plain text.

Posture: Second Circuit vacated removal order; Supreme Court granted certiorari January 9, 2026.

Main Arguments:

• Government (Petitioner): (1) Courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary parole decisions; (2) The INA requires proof of the offense at the removal hearing, not at the border; (3) Requiring border officers to weigh clear-and-convincing evidence before paroling LPRs would nullify decades of lawful practice
• Lau (Respondent): (1) The INA's plain text requires the government to establish the statutory exception at the time of reentry; (2) Courts retain jurisdiction to review whether DHS held authority to parole at all; (3) The government retains ample deportation authority under § 1227 and faces no operational hardship

Implications (90 words max): A government victory preserves DHS's ability to parole returning green-card holders facing criminal charges, use later convictions to justify the parole decision, and invoke the inadmissibility track — where the noncitizen bears the burden of proof. A Lau victory forces the government onto the deportation track for any LPR admitted without sufficient border-time evidence, shifting the burden of proof to the government. Millions of permanent residents who travel abroad while facing pending charges would gain a clearer procedural protection against the inadmissibility framework.

The Fine Print:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C): "An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien — … (v) has committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2) of this title…"
• 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A): "The Secretary of Homeland Security may … in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily … only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien…"

Primary Cases:

• Wilkinson v. Garland (2024): Courts retain jurisdiction to review whether a noncitizen met the statutory eligibility requirements for a discretionary immigration decision — even where the ultimate exercise of discretion sits beyond judicial review
• Vartelas v. Holder (2012): A lawful permanent resident who committed a crime involving moral turpitude before a 1996 statutory change could not retroactively lose the right to travel abroad and return; the Court acknowledged in dicta that § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) appears to require conviction or admission of the offense

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:01:22] Oral Advocates

[00:01:33] Argument Begins

[00:01:38] United States Opening Statement

[00:03:42] United States Free for All Questions

[00:26:57] United States Round Robin Questions

[00:51:52] Lau Opening Statement

[00:54:15] Lau Free for All Questions

[01:22:24] Lau Round Robin Questions

[01:25:46] United States Rebuttal