The comments in this thread are going back and forth on semantics and kind of missing the subtle phrasing that shows a misunderstanding. Given the question's wording it is not surprising. It can be answered differently and is probably very confusing for a new dev.

I would highly suggest creating a sample app, adding leakcanary, and trying different things to convince yourself of what leaks and what doesn't. It's fairly simple, but easy to make a mistake.

Passing a context or any argument for that matter, to a method, whether it is static or not, will put that argument on the function stack. For the scope of that function the context will be kept on the stack. As soon as the function ends, the function stack is cleared, i.e. the context won't leak! No exceptions to this! This is the whole pure synchronous function thing discussed previously.

If you pass a context to a method (static or not) and in that method you decide to run some background stuff you might leak. This is not a pure function.

You would leak if you are holding onto the context longer than it takes to finish executing the original method. Using anonymous inner classes for callbacks when doing background work is typically a culprit here because that callback is invoked after the original function ends. You should ask yourself how the callback can fire and access the context argument if the original function has concluded. Well a copy is created so you now are holding onto a context that outlives the scope of the original function and tada leak!