Singh v. US Department of Homeland Security

Background

The court had denied Singh’s motion for a temporary restraining order on June 26, 2025. On June 30, Singh’s counsel filed an administrative motion for leave to file a supplemental brief. The stated purpose was to help the court decide the temporary restraining-order motion, but that motion had already been denied.

Court’s Treatment of the Filing

The court found the filing deficient under the local rule governing administrative motions. Instead, it construed the filing as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under the local rule governing reconsideration. The court also construed Singh’s supplemental brief as the proposed motion for reconsideration.

The court questioned whether Singh had shown that, through reasonable diligence, he did not know the relevant facts or law when the temporary restraining order was denied. But the court noted that, at the temporary-restraining-order hearing, it had told Singh’s counsel that she needed to establish more facts to support the request. The court described the new filing as an inartful attempt to do so.

Issue Requiring a Response

The supplemental brief raised a new issue that the court said deserved a response. Singh argued that parole is the exclusive way to release a person subject to expedited removal and that he was instead released under section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which he argued applies only to people not subject to expedited removal. He further argued that, if correct, this would give him the constitutional right to due process applicable to persons within the United States.

The court stated that this contention would benefit from a substantive response. It limited the required response to whether Singh’s release under section 236 affected his parole status, or whether the Department of Homeland Security was otherwise acting within its discretion to place him in regular removal proceedings even though he was also subject to expedited removal.

Ruling and Next Steps

Judge William Orrick granted Singh’s administrative motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and accepted the supplemental brief as that motion. The defendants were ordered to file a response within 21 days. The response could not exceed five pages and could include a declaration from someone knowledgeable about parole practice and procedure.

The order did not decide the motion for reconsideration, revisit the denial of the temporary restraining order, or resolve the underlying immigration issue. The court stated that it would notify the parties if a hearing or additional briefing became necessary after reviewing the defendants’ response.