Khambounheuang v. Noem
Sisawang Khambounheuang v. Kristi Noem, Pamela Jo Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Jesus Rocha, Christopher Larose
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for a temporary restraining order filed by a detained immigration petitioner. The court granted the motion, ordering the petitioner's immediate release and enjoining the government from removing the petitioner from the United States or the district pending the resolution of the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order granted“The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order.” | unsure The order grants the TRO based on reasons stated on the record, which are not included in the text provided. However, the court cites the All Writs Act and Ninth Circuit precedent (Al Otro Lado) to support the injunction against removal, which is a standard basis for such relief in immigration detention cases. The specific factual basis for the TRO (e.g., likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm) is not detailed in the order text itself, making a full evaluation of the legal sufficiency difficult without the underlying motion and hearing record. Nevertheless, the use of the All Writs Act to enjoin removal is a recognized judicial power. |
Order to release Petitioner“Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner by 12 p.m. on October 10, 2025, and to file an affidavit attesting to Petitioner’s release by 5 p.m. on October 11, 2025.” | agree with court This is a specific directive resulting from the grant of the TRO. It is a standard remedial order accompanying a TRO in immigration cases to effectuate the stay of removal or detention. |
Injunction against removal“Respondents, along with their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with them, are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending the resolution of this matter, pursuant to the Court’s authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).” | agree with court The court relies on the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)) to issue the injunction. It cites F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co. and Al Otro Lado v. Wolf. Al Otro Lado is a Ninth Circuit case that affirms district courts' authority to issue injunctions against removal under the All Writs Act. The application of this authority is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
Order for preliminary injunction briefing on specific regulatory compliance“As part of the preliminary injunction briefing, the parties are ORDERED to address the Government’s compliance with procedures under both 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13.” | agree with court This is a procedural order directing the scope of future briefing. It is within the court's discretion to manage the litigation and identify key legal issues for the preliminary injunction phase. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a short, procedural TRO order. It cites the correct statutory authority (All Writs Act) and relevant Ninth Circuit precedent (Al Otro Lado) for the injunction against removal. However, it does not detail the factual or legal basis for granting the TRO (e.g., likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities), stating only that the reasons are 'on the record.' This makes it difficult to fully assess the soundness of the decision without the underlying record. The result (granting TRO and enjoining removal) is consistent with the cited authorities and common practice in such cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SISAWANG KHAMBOUNHEUANG, Case No.: 25-cv-02575-JO-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [DKT. 3] 14 KRISTI NOEM, PAMELA JO BONDI, TODD M. LYONS, JESUS ROCHA, 15 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner Sisawang Khambounheuang (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for temporary 19 restraining order. Dkt. 3. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court ORDERS as 20 follows: 21 (1) The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order. 22 Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner by 12 p.m. on October 10, 23 2025, and to file an affidavit attesting to Petitioner’s release by 5 p.m. on 24 October 11, 2025. 25 (2) Respondents, along with their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all 26 persons acting in concert with them, are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner 27 from the United States or this District pending the resolution of this matter, 28 1 pursuant to the Court’s authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 2 See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966); Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 3 952 F.3d 999, n.6 (9th Cir. 2020). 4 (3) As part of the preliminary injunction briefing, the parties are ORDERED to 5 address the Government’s compliance with procedures under both 8 C.F.R. § 6 241.4 and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13. This briefing should cover (a) the Government’s 7 grounds and internal decision-making process for revoking Petitioner’s release, 8 including whether any changed circumstances justify revocation of Petitioner’s 9 release, and (2) whether Petitioner has been provided an initial informal 10 interview. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Qe 14 || Date: October 9, 2025 15 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28