FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 28, 2025

MEDIA CONTACTS:

CLEAR: cunyclear@law.cuny.edu

Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP: Redmond Haskins, rhaskins@legal-aid.org, c: 929-441-2384

Human Rights First:Press@HumanRightsFirst.org

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the SF Bay Area: Raya Steier, rsteier@lccrsf.org, c:530-723-2426

***MEDIA ADVISORY FOR MAY 29, 2025***

NEW YORK– Tomorrow, in a critical hearing, 21-year-old Columbia student and U.S. permanent resident Yunseo Chung will seek continued federal court protection against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest and detention in violation of her Constitutional rights. The U.S. government claims that it has the power to jail Ms. Chung solely for attending protests criticizing Israel’s war on Gaza–a blatant attack on free speech and due process. Tomorrow’s hearing builds on a March ruling that found that the government has no legitimate reason to arrest Ms. Chung, granting her temporary protection against ICE detention as the court considers her constitutional claims.

WHEN: Thursday, May 29, 2025 at Noon

WHERE: Courtroom 21A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007

WHO: Lawyers will speak to the press in front of the Thurgood Marshall Building, 40 Foley Square, after the hearing is over.

Background:

Tomorrow, Chung’s legal team will argue against the government’s efforts to dismiss Ms. Chung’s case and take action against Ms. Chung outside of judicial review. The government’s position would set a dangerous precedent, effectively allowing immigration enforcement to be weaponized against political expression, stripping U.S. permanent residents of the ability to defend their Constitutional rights in federal court. Her attorneys will uphold her First Amendment right to free speech for which she has been targeted, arguing that detaining Ms. Chung during ongoing litigation would not only harm her personally but also have a broader chilling effect on the free speech and due process protections of others.

Ms. Chung should be allowed to defend her right to free speech in court without the looming threat of being disappeared into the immigration detention system. At its core, this case poses a fundamental question: can courts stop the government from arresting and deporting non-citizens simply for speaking out?  

Attorney Statements:

“Ms. Chung has spoken out in defense of her fellow students, and for this reason she is being targeted by the federal government,” said Naz Ahmad, Co-Director of CLEAR at CUNY School of Law. “Time and again, students point the way towards a better future, and targeting any student for their speech sould be deeply concerning for all in this country, citizen and non-citizen alike.”

“The Trump Administration is targeting Yunseo for deportation because of her beliefs and her speech — plain and simple,” said Sonya Levitova, Associate at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. “That is unconstitutional. No one should fear losing their home or future in this country for speaking their mind. As we head into this hearing, we remain committed to defending Yunseo’s rights and ensuring she can continue building her life as a twenty-one-year-old college student.”

Joshua Colangelo-Bryan of Human Rights First said, “Ms. Chung is being targeted not for breaking the law or doing anything remotely wrong, but just for peacefully expressing her views.  The Constitution doesn’t allow any administration to deport someone for exercising her First Amendment rights, and certainly not someone like Ms. Chung who has excelled since she came to this country years ago.”

“Every action ICE has taken against Ms. Chung points to one thing: retaliation for exercising her right to speak on a pressing humanitarian issue of our time,” said Jordan Wells, Immigrant Justice Program Director at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. “At stake is not only Ms. Chung’s right to stay in the country and continue her education, but whether our legal system will uphold the fundamental principle that the government cannot retaliate against individuals for their beliefs.”  

Memo of Law Opposition of Motion to Dismiss

Memo of Law Further Support for Preliminary Injunction

###