Laing v. Genalo
Dara Brody ex rel. Kamoro Anthony Laing and Kamoro Anthony Laing v. Kenneth Genalo, Field Office Director for Detention and Removal, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-09980
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Dara Brody ex rel. Kamoro Anthony Laing v. Genalo, Judge Rochon ordered responses and temporarily restricted removal and transfers while considering a habeas petition.
Dara Brody, acting for Kamoro Anthony Laing, and Kamoro Anthony Laing are affected by the deadlines, hearing, and restrictions on removal and transfer. Kenneth Genalo and the Department of Homeland Security must provide information, answer the petition, and produce the petitioners at the hearing.
What happened
In Dara Brody ex rel. Kamoro Anthony Laing v. Genalo, Dara Brody, acting for Kamoro Anthony Laing, and Laing filed a petition challenging detention under a federal law allowing courts to review certain detention claims.
The court ordered the government to provide information about the petitioners’ location, detention, detention authority, removal orders, and immigration proceedings. It also ordered an answer, allowed a reply, scheduled a hearing, and required the government to bring the petitioners to court. Until further order, the petitioners may not be removed from the United States or transferred outside specified nearby districts.
Judge Rochon did not decide whether the detention was lawful. The order instead directed the parties to provide information and respond to the petition while preserving the court’s ability to hear the case.
The detailed version
- Laing v. Genalo · No. 1:25-cv-09980
- Rochon
- Dec. 2, 2025
What the case concerns
Dara Brody, acting as a “next friend” for Kamoro Anthony Laing, and Laing filed a petition for a court order reviewing detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not decide whether the detention is lawful.
Orders to the respondent
The court ordered the respondent to file information about:
- Whether the petitioners were in the Southern District of New York when the petition was filed, and, if not, where they were and whether the case should be transferred; - The petitioners’ immigration identification numbers, current detention location, and a contact person who could facilitate access for prospective counsel; - The legal provisions claimed to authorize their detention; - Any final removal order; and - The status of any pending Department of Homeland Security or Executive Office for Immigration Review proceedings.
The court also ordered the respondent to answer the petition and allowed the petitioners to file a reply. The court scheduled a hearing for December 12, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. and ordered the respondent to produce the petitioners at that hearing.
Restrictions on removal and transfer
To preserve its ability to decide the petition, the court ordered that the petitioners not be removed from the United States unless the court later orders otherwise. The respondent also may not transfer them 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 orders otherwise.
Disposition
This is an order directing the respondent to answer and preserving the court’s jurisdiction while the petition is pending. It does not grant or deny the habeas petition and does not reach the merits of the detention challenge. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to notify the U.S. Attorney’s Office and mail the order and an information package to Dara Brody.
Date inconsistency in the order
The order’s numbered instructions say that the respondent’s information letter was due December 4, 2025. Its conclusion instead says the letter was due December 2, 2025. The opinion does not explain this difference.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.