WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court tried to figure out Tuesday whether immigrants should get a second chance in court when bad legal advice leads to a guilty plea and certain deportation.

The justices seemed divided during an argument about what to do in cases in which the evidence against criminal defendants is strong and the chances of acquittal by a jury are remote.

The court is considering the case of Jae Lee, a South Korean immigrant who was facing drug charges.

Lee pleaded guilty after his lawyer mistakenly assured him a conviction would not lead to deportation.

The Trump administration is arguing the outcome at trial would have been the same. The administration has pledged to increase deportations, with a focus on immigrants who have been convicted of crimes.

John Bursch, Lee’s lawyer, told the court that his client would have taken his chances at trial or had his lawyer seek a better plea deal that might allow him to remain in the United States.

Justice Elena Kagan, seeming to favor Lee, said she would make the same choice if she were in Lee’s shoes. ‘‘Sign me up,’’ Kagan said.

The issue in Lee’s appeal is whether the lawyer’s recommendation to take the deal offered by prosecutors was so bad that it amounts to a violation of Lee’s constitutional right to a lawyer.

Both sides agree that the performance of the lawyer, Larry Fitzgerald, was deficient in representing Lee. The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that immigrants have a constitutional right to be told by their lawyers whether pleading guilty to a crime could lead to their deportation.

But Lee also must show that the bad lawyering mattered to the outcome of the criminal case.

Associated Press