Bondi v. Lau Supreme Court Case

Reference TimelineLast updated MAR 1
SUMMARY

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 22, 2026, in the case of Bondi v. Lau, concerning whether the government must prove clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of a lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States to remove them. As of January 9, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a Second Circuit ruling that overturned a deportation order for Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident, who was convicted of trademark counterfeiting. The central question is whether immigration agents can presume guilt in deportation cases based solely on criminal charges, rather than requiring clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of reentry. The Second Circuit had previously vacated Lau's removal order, holding that the Department of Homeland Security improperly classified him as an applicant for admission while a criminal charge was pending.

Timeline

Want updates on this thread?

Track this story

February 2026 — 1 developments

  1. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the case of Bondi v.

    The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the case of Bondi v. Lau for April 22, 2026. The case concerns whether the government must prove it had clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of a lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States to remove them. The Second Circuit had previously ruled in favor of Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident.

January 2026 — 7 developments

  1. Oral arguments for the Supreme Court case *Bondi v.

    Oral arguments for the Supreme Court case *Bondi v. Lau* are likely to be held in April.

  2. The Supreme Court has listed *Bondi v.

    The Supreme Court has listed *Bondi v. Lau* among the cases for which it has agreed to hear oral arguments in the October 2025-26 term. The central question is whether the government needs to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of a lawful permanent resident's last reentry.

  3. A certificate of compliance was filed on January 15, 2026, for the Brief in Opposition in Bondi v.

    A certificate of compliance was filed on January 15, 2026, for the Brief in Opposition in Bondi v. Lau, certifying that it complies with word limitations.

  5. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Bondi v.

    The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Bondi v. Lau on January 9, 2026. The case will determine if the government must present clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of a lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the U.S. to justify removal. This follows a Second Circuit ruling that overturned a deportation order for Muk Choi Lau, who was convicted of trademark counterfeiting.

  6. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the U.

    The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the U.S. government's appeal in the case of Bondi v. Lau, concerning the deportation of lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau. The court will decide whether immigration agents can presume guilt in deportation cases based solely on criminal charges, rather than requiring clear and convincing evidence of an offense at the time of reentry.

  7. The Department of Justice's Office of the Solicitor General lists the case Bondi v.

    The Department of Justice's Office of the Solicitor General lists the case Bondi v. Lau under docket number 25-429, with brief topics identified as Administrative Law and Immigration, Naturalization, & Citizenship.

March 2025 — 1 developments

  1. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Lau's petition for review, vacated the final order of removal, and remanded the case.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Lau's petition for review, vacated the final order of removal, and remanded the case. The court held that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) improperly classified Lau as an applicant for admission when he returned to the United States while his criminal charge was pending.

November 2021 — 1 developments

  1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an Immigration Judge's decision, finding Lau inadmis…

    The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an Immigration Judge's decision, finding Lau inadmissible due to his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and ineligible for a waiver. The BIA also rejected Lau's argument that he was improperly classified as an applicant for admission upon his return.

June 2012 — 1 developments

  1. While awaiting trial, Lau temporarily left the United States.

    While awaiting trial, Lau temporarily left the United States. Upon his return, he was paroled for deferred inspection by immigration authorities due to his pending criminal charge.

May 2012 — 1 developments

  1. Muk Choi Lau was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey.

    Muk Choi Lau was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey.