Maslenjak v. United States was argued yesterday at SCOTUS. It is an important immigration/naturalization case on whether or not the US government can denaturalize an immigrant from citizenship because they misrepresented something on their application forms, even if the 'misrepresented truth' was not significant enough to impact the decision on their naturalization application.
The judge in the case involved did not instruct the jury to determine whether or not the misrepresentation was material to the naturalization decision, in a criminal case brought against the plaintiff for lying on her application form about something related to her husband. (The jury had even asked for clarification on the reason the woman had received refugee status and then citizenship, only to be told by the judge that they did not need that info to make their decision.) Her conviction in the criminal case led to her citizenship being revoked, and her deportation.
The minute the government attorney stood up to present his case, Roberts jumped on him, and the liberal justices followed suit, along with Kennedy. At one point, Roberts was reading definitions from Black's law dictionary at him. Gorsuch and Alito mostly badgered the plaintiff's attorney. The questioning of Parker begins on page 26 of the transcript.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/16-309_b97c.pdf
SCOTUSblog's take on the argument is that the court was leaning in favor of the plaintiff: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argument-analysis-concerns-prosecutorial-discretion-likely-lead-ruling-bosnian-serb-immigration-case/
PS The immigrant in question and her husband were not overly sympathetic characters. The husband lied on his refugee application about being a member of the Bosnian Serbian army; he was in a unit involved in the anti-Muslim genocide. He never applied for citizenship, and had been deported already (I think).
= new reply since forum marked as read