Diallo v. Joyce
Aissatou Diallo v. William Joyce, New York Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-09909
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aissatou Diallo v. Joyce, Judge Subramanian ordered briefing and a hearing on Diallo’s immigration petition while restricting her removal and transfer.
Aissatou Diallo and the federal immigration authorities named as respondents, including William Joyce and Kristi Noem.
What happened
Aissatou Diallo v. William Joyce concerns Diallo’s petition asking for relief under a federal law allowing challenges to custody or detention. She also asked for an emergency order requiring the government to respond.
The court ordered the government to respond by December 3, 2025, and allowed Diallo to reply by December 4. It scheduled a hearing for December 5 and required the government to furnish Diallo for that hearing.
Judge Arun Subramanian ordered that Diallo not be removed from the United States while the petition remains pending. He also barred the respondents from transferring her outside specified nearby federal districts without further court permission. The order did not decide the petition’s merits.
The detailed version
- Diallo v. Joyce · No. 1:25-cv-09909
- Subramanian
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
On November 26, 2025, Aissatou Diallo filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law that permits certain challenges to a person’s custody or detention. She then filed an emergency motion for an order requiring the government to explain its position. The opinion does not describe the underlying merits of her petition.
Court’s directives
The court ordered the government to respond to the petition by Wednesday, December 3, 2025. Diallo’s reply brief was due Thursday, December 4, 2025. The court scheduled a hearing for Friday, December 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 15A at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. The government was ordered to furnish Diallo for the hearing.
To preserve the court’s authority to rule on the petition, the court ordered that Diallo not be removed from the United States while the petition is pending. It also ordered that the respondents not transfer Diallo except to a facility within the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey, unless the court later permits the transfer. If the case had been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not have to appear at the hearing if proof of termination was filed on the docket beforehand.
Disposition and significance
This order set a briefing schedule and hearing and imposed temporary restrictions on Diallo’s removal and transfer. It did not grant or deny the petition, and it did not decide whether Diallo is entitled to the relief requested. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order on December 1, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.