Episode
Oral Argument: Bondi v. Lau
- Podcast
- The High Court Report
- Published
- Apr 22, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 5467
- Processing state
not_requested- Canonical source
- https://thehighcourtreport.com//oral-argument-bondi-v-lau
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/the-high-court-report-7304353/episodes/oral-argument-bondi-v-lau/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/oral-argument-bondi-v-lau.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
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…