Oral Argument: Bondi v. Lau

About this episode

The episode discusses the Supreme Court case Bondi v. Lau regarding the removal of lawful permanent residents based on inadmissibility after parole.

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…

People in this episode

Guests: Sopan Joshi, Shay Dvoretzky

Topics covered

• immigration law
• Supreme Court
• legal arguments
• deportation
• permanent residency

Keywords

• Bondi v. Lau
• Supreme Court
• immigration
• lawful permanent resident
• deportation
• INA
• clear and convincing evidence

Mentioned in this episode

Organizations: Department of Justice, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Supreme Court, DHS, INA, Second Circuit

More episodes of The High Court Report

• Opinion Summary: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers | Nondisclosure Doesn't Lead to Lawsuit Dismissal · June 12, 2026 · 12 min
• Oral Argument Re-Listen: Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma | Generic Drug Beats Patent Trap · June 11, 2026 · 1h 2m
• Opinion Summary: Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma | Generic Drug Beats Patent Trap · June 10, 2026 · 1h 2m
• Oral Argument Re-Listen: Sripetch v. SEC | Victimless Fraudsters Can't Keep Profits · June 9, 2026 · 1h 12m
• Opinion Summary: Sripetch v. SEC | Victimless Fraudsters Can't Keep Profits · June 8, 2026 · 15 min
• Oral Argument Re-Listen: FCC v. AT&T | Forfeiture Fines Without Force · June 7, 2026 · 1h 26m