Wang v. Lyons

Background

Kaifeng Wang moved without advance notice for a temporary restraining order against Todd Lyons and other defendants. Wang sought immediate release from detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and an order preventing the agency from re-detaining him without a hearing.

The opinion states that Wang, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States without inspection on November 7, 2024. Immigration and Customs Enforcement granted him interim parole for one year on December 18, 2024. Wang filed an asylum application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services on March 5, 2025, based on his fear of returning to China because he said Chinese police had arrested, beaten, and tortured him. After the asylum office issued a notice stating that it would schedule a credible-fear appointment, Wang remained in the United States under parole. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him during a routine immigration check-in on December 18, 2025.

Legal Standard

The court applied the standard for temporary restraining orders, which is largely the same as the standard for preliminary injunctions. Wang had to show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored an order. Because the defendants included a government entity, the court treated the balance-of-harms and public-interest factors together. The court also considered the requirement for an order issued without advance notice: specific facts had to show that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before the defendants could respond, and Wang’s counsel had to describe efforts to provide notice and why notice should not be required.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Wang satisfied the requirements for an order without advance notice. Counsel’s affidavit showed that continued detention could cause immediate and irreparable harm, and counsel had attempted to contact the United States Attorney’s Office on December 18, 2025.

The court found that Wang was likely to succeed on his claim that his detention violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. It determined that a noncitizen who has been conditionally released into the United States has a significant liberty interest in remaining out of immigration custody. Applying the three-factor balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Wang’s liberty interest was substantial, that detention without a hearing created a significant risk of an erroneous deprivation, and that a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker would impose only a minimal burden on the government.

The court accepted Wang’s argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), applied to his circumstances. Under that reading, Wang was entitled to a hearing at which detention could be justified by flight risk or danger to persons or property. The court stated that defendants had not shown that Wang was either a flight risk or a danger to the community. Because he had received no bond hearing, completed notice and order of expedited removal, or other identified procedural protection, the court found a likelihood that his Fifth Amendment rights had been wrongly deprived.

The court also found likely irreparable harm from Wang’s ongoing detention. It concluded that the balance of harms and public interest favored Wang because the alleged detention policy was inconsistent with federal law and because the government’s potential harm was, at most, a short delay while it made the required showing before a neutral decisionmaker. Immediate release was necessary to restore the status quo, which the court described as the parties’ situation before the challenged detention.

Order

The court granted Wang’s motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. Defendants were ordered to immediately release Wang and were barred from re-detaining him unless they first provided a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which the government established by clear and convincing evidence that detention was appropriate to prevent flight or protect the public. If defendants held that hearing, they were required to give Wang reasonable advance notice of its time and place and provide an order issued after the hearing.

The order was to remain in effect until January 15, 2026, and the court extended the usual temporary-restraining-order period because of the upcoming holiday period and the need to hold a preliminary-injunction hearing. The court waived the requirement that Wang post security. It ordered defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, set a hearing for January 8, 2026, and established briefing and status-report deadlines.