Duong v. Kaiser

Background

Rachana Duong filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. The motion sought immediate release from immigration custody. According to the information available to the court, Duong is a longtime legal permanent resident who was admitted to the United States as a refugee at age five. The opinion states that Duong was convicted of first-degree murder and grand theft at age 19, was granted parole in March 2020, and was later arrested and held in immigration custody for three months. On June 20, 2020, Duong was released through the bail-application process. The opinion says Duong complied with the conditions of release and reported to immigration authorities.

The opinion states that immigration officers arrested Duong at home on September 6, 2025. The officers allegedly told Duong that there was an issue with a photo submission and asked Duong to step outside, where they detained Duong. The opinion also states that Duong has chronic respiratory issues and works for multiple community organizations.

Legal standard

The court said the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. Generally, the person requesting an injunction must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and that the injunction serves the public interest. The court also considered the rule allowing an order without advance notice when immediate and irreparable harm may occur before the opposing party can respond.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the requirements for issuing the temporary restraining order without notice were met. It found that Duong had shown specific facts indicating that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the opposing parties could be heard, and that Duong’s attorney had attempted to contact the Civil Division Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.

The court concluded that Duong was likely to succeed on the merits of a due-process claim. It said the Constitution protects people within the United States, including noncitizens, and that Duong had a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody after release on bond. Applying the factors from the Supreme Court’s procedural-due-process framework, the court found that Duong should be immediately released and receive notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before being taken back into custody.

The court also found likely irreparable harm because detention would deprive Duong of constitutional rights and liberty. It found that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief, citing the public interest in procedural protections against unlawful detention and the comparatively limited harm to the respondents from a short delay in any later detention.

Order

The court granted Duong’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. Respondents were ordered to immediately release Duong from custody and were enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Duong without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. They were also restrained from removing Duong from the United States.

The order stated that it would remain in effect until September 20, 2025, at 5 p.m. Duong was not to be deported, removed, or otherwise transferred outside the United States until further order. The court ordered respondents to show cause at a September 19, 2025 hearing why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and set deadlines for respondents’ response, any reply, service, and a status report confirming release.