He v. Lyons

Background

Qiong-Ling He filed a petition asking for relief from immigration detention and moved for a temporary restraining order. The motion sought to prevent the respondents from re-detaining her without prior notice and a hearing before detention.

The opinion states that He is a thirty-three-year-old native and citizen of China who has lived in the United States for six years. She entered the United States without inspection, was apprehended and detained by immigration officials, and was referred for a credible-fear interview. After an immigration judge issued a removal order on February 4, 2020, which He did not appeal, ICE released her under an order of supervision. The opinion states that she complied with the order’s conditions, including periodic check-ins.

He last checked in with ICE on May 29, 2025. On December 12, 2025, she received a text message directing her to report to ICE on December 15. Her counsel contacted ICE to ask whether it intended to detain her again but received no response. Based on reports of other people being detained after being called for ICE check-ins, He feared that appearing for the appointment would result in her arrest and detention.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard used for a preliminary injunction to He’s request for a temporary restraining order. That standard requires considering whether the movant is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief, whether the balance of harms favors the movant, and whether an injunction serves the public interest. The court also noted that a temporary restraining order should generally preserve the current situation and prevent irreparable harm only until a hearing on longer-lasting relief can occur.

Because the motion sought relief before the respondents could respond, the court separately considered Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). It found that He’s counsel had provided specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the respondents were heard and had attempted to contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office and provide the petition and motion.

Court’s analysis

The court found that He was likely to succeed on her procedural due process claim under the Fifth Amendment. It concluded that she had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody and that the Due Process Clause entitled her to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before any arrest or detention.

The court also found that detention without a hearing would likely cause irreparable injury because the deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm. It concluded that the balance of equities and the public interest strongly favored temporary relief. The court reasoned that the potential harm to He was significant, while the government’s potential harm was limited to a possible short delay in detention if it later showed that detention was necessary to prevent danger to the community or flight.

Order

The court GRANTED He’s motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. It ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED the respondents from re-detaining He without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The order remains effective until 5:00 p.m. on December 26, 2025.

The court exercised its discretion to dispense with a bond. It required service of the petition, motion, and order on the respondents, ordered the respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted, set briefing deadlines, and scheduled a hearing by Zoom for December 26, 2025. The order disposes of the motion listed as Docket No. 2.