This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Mark C. Fleming, the dispute concerns whether a lawful permanent resident subject to deportation must have the same opportunity to seek discretionary relief as an alien who has temporarily left the country and is subject to exclusion proceedings.
The Government argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ “Blake” rule permits a substantial overlap between the categories of crimes.
Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Gannon, challenges the factual basis of the record and argues that offenses such as simple assault and non‑residential burglary should not be treated as crimes involving moral turpitude for deportation purposes.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument began at 11:07 a.m. before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Justice Scalia asked whether the Blake and Brieva decisions changed the law.
Justice Ginsburg asked about the comparability of the crime involved in St. Cyr and whether the inadmissibility criterion matches the one for deportation.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned whether there is only one category—aggravated violent felony—and whether that is the test being applied.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Joel Judulang)
According to Mark C. Fleming, petitioner argues that a lawful permanent resident subject to deportation must have the same opportunity to seek discretionary relief as an alien in exclusion proceedings, citing Hernandez‑Casillas.
According to Mr. Gannon, petitioner contends that the administrative record lacks a factual basis for a 1987 trip to the Philippines and that crimes such as simple assault and non‑residential burglary should not be classified as crimes involving moral turpitude for deportation purposes.
According to Government, according to Mark C. Fleming, the Government’s position represents a change in the law regarding the treatment of permanent‑resident aliens.
Respondent (Attorney General)
According to Government, according to the Government, the Board of Immigration Appeals’ “Blake” rule allows substantial overlap between categories of crimes.
According to NIJC, the NIJC amicus brief notes that individuals such as Ronald Bennett, who pleaded guilty, could still seek 212(c) protection, illustrating that discretionary relief is available after a guilty plea.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked whether the Blake and Brieva decisions changed the law.
Justice Ginsburg asked about the comparability of the crime in St. Cyr and whether the inadmissibility criterion matches the one for deportation.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether there is only one category—aggravated violent felony—and whether that is the test being applied.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 646b42865f713936a5ed-r1-f150bfc834f20e06.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.