Chung v. Trump: A Korean-American LPR, a Preliminary Injunction, and a National Order Against Detention
- Citation
- Chung v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-02412 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); TRO Mar. 25, 2025; PI June 5, 2025
- Court
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- Judge
- Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
- Statute
- 28 U.S.C. § 2241; First and Fifth Amendments; 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
- Holding
- Preliminary injunction enjoining arrest, detention, or interstate transfer of petitioner anywhere in the country; 72 hours’ notice required before any non-removal-based detention; bond requirement waived.
Yunseo Chung is a Korean-American lawful permanent resident. She arrived in the United States as a child and was a Columbia University undergraduate at the time of the events giving rise to her case. She had participated in Columbia’s pro-Palestinian protests during the 2024-25 academic year. In March 2025, she became aware that ICE was preparing to detain her on the same theory that had been used against Mahmoud Khalil. Her counsel filed a preemptive habeas/§ 1331 action in the Southern District of New York seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The TRO
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a TRO on March 25, 2025 barring ICE from arresting or detaining Chung on the basis of her speech. The TRO was unusual in that it was preemptive: Chung was not yet in custody. The court reasoned that the credible threat of imminent detention based on protected speech satisfied the irreparable-harm requirement, and that the balance of equities favored prevention rather than post-hoc habeas correction.
The preliminary injunction
The court’s June 5, 2025 preliminary injunction expanded the relief and denied the government’s motion to dismiss. The PI enjoins ICE from arresting, detaining, or transferring Chung anywhere in the country on the basis of her protected speech; requires 72 hours’ notice before any non-removal-based detention; and waives the ordinary bond requirement for the injunction itself. The geographic scope is unusual — most district-court orders are limited to the district’s own geographic jurisdiction — and reflects the court’s view that ICE’s practice of jurisdiction-shopping transfers required nationwide protection to be effective.
“The right to engage in protected expression cannot be conditioned on the petitioner’s willingness to remain available for arrest in any jurisdiction the Government may choose.”
Procedural innovation
The 72-hour-notice requirement is the case’s most replicable doctrinal contribution. Where prior habeas relief has typically reacted to actual detention, the Chung order requires advance notice and creates a window in which counsel can intervene. The notice requirement applies to non-removal-based detention specifically, leaving open the government’s ability to detain on a final order of removal but precluding pretextual immigration enforcement designed to bypass the speech protections.
The geographic scope of the order — nationwide rather than district-bounded — has been controversial. The government has argued that such a broad injunction exceeds the district court’s authority and runs afoul of Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez’s limits on classwide injunctive relief. Judge Buchwald reasoned that the order operates in personam against the federal officials who would conduct any arrest or detention, and that geographic limitation would render the protection nugatory in light of ICE’s demonstrated practice of interstate transfer.
Significance
Chung v. Trump has not been the subject of an appellate ruling as of this writing. The PI remains in effect; Chung has not been arrested or detained. The case is now cited as the leading example of preemptive injunctive habeas in the student-detention docket and as a procedural template for situations where credible threats of speech-based detention exist before any arrest has occurred.
For practitioners, the case raises a strategic question about timing. The traditional habeas posture — wait for arrest, file in district of confinement, seek release — does not always serve clients well in the modern enforcement environment, where ICE’s rendition transfers and rapid removal attempts can outpace litigation. Chung’s preemptive model offers an alternative where credible-threat evidence can be developed.
Filed under First Amendment Detentions. Published March 25, 2025 (TRO); June 5, 2025 (preliminary injunction).