Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Sept. 22, 2025

Al-Thuraya v. Warden

Full caption

Hasan Ahmed Taleb Al-Thuraya v. Warden, Orange County Correctional Facility et al.

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:25-cv-02582
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasImmigration
In one sentence

In Hasan Ahmed Taleb Al-Thuraya v. Warden, Judge Subramanian ordered respondents to provide a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge by September 29, 2025.

Who this affects

Hasan Ahmed Taleb Al-Thuraya and the respondents, including the Warden of Orange County Correctional Facility; the order also requires action by an Immigration Judge.

What happened

Hasan Ahmed Taleb Al-Thuraya filed a petition against the Warden of Orange County Correctional Facility and other respondents. The order does not explain the petition’s underlying claims.

The court ordered respondents to furnish Al-Thuraya for a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge by September 29, 2025. The hearing must follow procedures described in Black v. Decker. Respondents must inform the court of the Immigration Judge’s determination after the hearing.

Judge Arun Subramanian said the court would later issue an opinion explaining the reasons for this order and addressing Al-Thuraya’s remaining claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Al-Thuraya v. Warden · No. 1:25-cv-02582
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Sept. 22, 2025

Order

After reviewing the parties’ filings, the court ordered the respondents to furnish Hasan Ahmed Taleb Al-Thuraya for a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge by September 29, 2025. The hearing is to be conducted under the procedures described in Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133 (2d Cir. 2024).

Reporting Requirement

After the bond hearing, the respondents must inform the court of the Immigration Judge’s determination.

Remaining Claims

The court stated that it would issue an opinion shortly explaining the reasons for the order and addressing the remaining claims in Al-Thuraya’s petition. The provided order does not describe those claims or explain the court’s legal reasoning for requiring the bond hearing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.