by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 5 – Yunseo Chung filed on March 24 seeking a temporary restraining order against detention and removal. At 3 pm on March 25 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Senior Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald held an emergency hearing. Inner City Press was there. thread
On April 4 Chung's lawyer filed requesting all "materials underlying the warrant issued on March 13, 2025, authorizing federal law enforcement to search for and seize documents from Ms. Chung’s Columbia University-owned residence" - full request on Patreon here
On April 10 Chung's lawyer, attaching the memo filed in Louisiana immigration court on Mahmoud Khalil, but not the attachments to it, asked for discovery, including a deposition, presumably of an ICE or State Department official.
On April 11 the Administration moved to dismiss.
After a proceeding that Inner City Press tweeted, on June 4 these answers: "the Court asked whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) would agree to serve a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on Yunseo Chung’s counsel rather than through personal service effectuated after an arrest.1 The answer is no. ICE has broad discretion over actions and decisions to conduct arrests and initiate removal proceedings, including the manner in which it serves an NTA. Separately, the Court had asked for a copy of Chung’s NTA. ICE has confirmed that an NTA has not yet been issued for Chung, as ICE typically issues and serves the NTA during processing that occurs after an arrest is made."
On June 5, Judge Buchwald issued a PI: "It is hereby ORDERED that defendants- respondents are preliminarily enjoined as follows : (1) Defendants-Respondents are enjoined from detaining and/or arresting the plaintiff- petitioner pending further order of this Court. (2) Defendants-Respondents are enjoined from transferring the plaintiff-petitioner from the jurisdiction of this District pending further order of this Court. (3) Should defendants-respondents seek to detain plaintiff-petitioner on any asserted basis other than pursuing her removal under 8 U.S. C. § 1227 (a) (4) (C), defendants-respondents are ordered to provide seventy-two hours' advance notice to the Court and counsel, in order to enable plaintiff-petitioner an opportunity to be heard regarding whether any such asserted basis for detention constitutes a pretext for First Amendment retaliation. (4) The bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (c) is waived. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 6/5/2025)."
More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here
The case is Chung v. Trump, et al., 1:25-cv-2412 (Buchwald)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
