SCOTUS hears big immigration case

The Supreme Court spent part of its final argument session on April 22 hearing a case that could decide when the government may try to remove a green-card holder returning from a trip abroad. (scotusblog.com) The case is Bondi v. Lau, docket 25-429, and it was set for argument on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, after the court granted review on January 9. (supremecourt.gov) At the center is Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident, the immigration-law term for a noncitizen with a green card and permission to live in the United States indefinitely unless that status is revoked. (scotusblog.com) The legal fight is about timing. Federal law generally says a returning green-card holder is not treated as someone asking for admission again unless one of six statutory exceptions applies. (supremecourt.gov) The government accepts that it must prove an exception by clear and convincing evidence, a high civil standard. The dispute is whether that proof had to exist when Lau last reentered the country or whether officials could let him in on parole and decide later that he was inadmissible all along. (supremecourt.gov) The Supreme Court’s own case description frames the question this way: whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was later paroled into the country, the government must have had clear and convincing evidence of that offense at the time of the person’s last reentry. (scotusblog.com) The lower court ruled for Lau. In a March 4, 2025 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the Department of Homeland Security could not rely on a pending criminal charge alone as clear and convincing evidence to treat him as an applicant for admission. (law.justia.com) That matters for green-card holders who travel. If the justices side with the government, immigration officials could have more room to parole a returning resident into the country and build the removal case later rather than proving the exception at the border. (supremecourt.gov) The case also lands in a term already crowded with immigration disputes. SCOTUSblog counted three significant immigration arguments earlier in the term and called October Term 2025 “a big one” for immigration law before Bondi v. Lau and another immigration case were added to the April calendar. (scotusblog.com) No ruling has been issued yet. The court usually hears arguments through the end of April and releases opinions by the end of June, which means Bondi v. Lau now moves from a technical dispute over reentry and parole to a waiting game for a decision. (supremecourt.gov)