No. 25-429
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau
Amici (1)
Experienced Counsel
Tags: immigration-law inadmissibility-grounds lawful-permanent-resident parole removal-proceedings statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2026-01-09
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether, to remove an LPR who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the LPR's last reentry into the United States.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether, to remove an LPR who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the LPR's last reentry into the United States
Docket Entries
2026-02-27
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
2026-02-25
Brief amicus curiae of Federation for American Immigration Reform filed.
2026-02-25
Amicus brief of Federation for American Immigration Reform submitted.
2026-02-18
Joint appendix filed.
2026-02-18
Brief for the Petitioner filed.
2026-02-18
Joint Appendix submitted.
2026-02-18
Brief for the Petitioner of Pamela Bondi submitted.
2026-02-11
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 22, 2026.
2026-01-15
Brief of Muk Lau submitted.
2026-01-09
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.
2026-01-09
Petition GRANTED.
2025-12-23
Reply of petitioner Pamela Bondi filed. (Distributed)
2025-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-08
Brief of respondent Muk Lau in opposition filed.
2025-10-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 8, 2025.
2025-10-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 7, 2025 to December 8, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-10-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 7, 2025)
2025-10-08
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.
Attorneys
Federation for American Immigration Reform
Muk Lau
Shay Dvoretzky — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Respondent
Pamela Bondi
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Petitioner