October Term 2016 · Docket 16-327

Does a guilty plea require proof of actual deportation risk?

Jae Lee claims his lawyer wrongly told him a plea would not trigger deportation. The government argues he must prove he would have gone to trial.

Official caption
Lee v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Lee's lawyer argued competent counsel would have avoided removal.

    The government argued Lee accepted the plea despite the risk.

    Justices debated whether the test for prejudice is subjective.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Jae Lee accepted a plea deal based on his lawyer's advice. He claims this advice was wrong and caused his removal. The government disputes the standard for proving this error.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 28, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Lee wants a new trial or a different plea deal.

The government wants to keep the conviction and removal.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Lee argues his lawyer's error forced a bad outcome.

The government argues Lee must prove he would have rejected the plea.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Roberts asked if the test is subjective.

Justice Kennedy asked if lawyers must advise on deportation risks.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how courts judge lawyer errors in plea deals. It affects how defendants weigh immigration risks before pleading guilty. It sets the standard for proving prejudice in these claims.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON