A coalition of civil rights attorneys filed an emergency federal lawsuit Monday to block the detention and potential deportation of a 21-year-old Columbia University student targeted for her participation in peaceful campus protests.
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from arresting Yunseo Chung, a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the United States since she was seven years old.
A junior at Columbia, Chung now faces removal under the administration’s newly-expanded “foreign policy interest” grounds for deportation—a policy allowing the government to target immigrants based solely on their political beliefs, statements, or associations if deemed adverse to U.S. foreign policy.
The legal team, led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF), includes CUNY Law School’s CLEAR Project, Human Rights First, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, the Law Office of Matthew Bray, and constitutional scholar Jonathan Hafetz.
Together, they argue that the administration’s policy amounts to an unconstitutional attack on First Amendment rights and an unprecedented weaponization of immigration law to silence political dissent.
“Speech about political change receives the highest level of protection under the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that noncitizens share those rights,” LCCRSF said in a statement Monday. “This is a blatant attempt to criminalize political speech and punish a young woman for standing up for human rights.”
Chung, a high-achieving student involved in campus publications and advocacy, has been swept into the administration’s broader effort to stifle pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses. Her supposed offense? Attending protests critical of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the disciplinary actions taken by Columbia University against student protesters.
According to the lawsuit, ICE agents appeared at Chung’s parents’ home on March 9, 2025, seeking to detain her. Just days earlier, Chung had participated in a protest supporting fellow students facing discipline for Palestine-related advocacy. She was arrested during the demonstration—a protest complicated by a false bomb threat—and issued a desk appearance ticket for a misdemeanor charge common at protests.
Almost immediately, federal officials moved to revoke Chung’s legal status. The lawsuit details how Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents informed Chung’s counsel that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had personally revoked her lawful permanent resident status—an action attorneys argue exceeds his legal authority.
“These actions are not isolated,” said Jonathan Hafetz, co-counsel on the case. “They are part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to use immigration enforcement as a cudgel against those who challenge its policies—especially those who speak out in support of Palestinian rights.”
The administration’s aggressive posture follows months of public statements by President Trump and Secretary Rubio pledging to deport foreign students who participate in protests perceived as critical of Israel. Since taking office in January, the administration has leaned heavily on two executive orders—one targeting “hostile attitudes” toward U.S. institutions and another expanding the government’s definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israeli policy.
This policy shift has triggered a wave of arrests, detentions, and attempted deportations of pro-Palestinian activists, particularly noncitizen students. One high-profile case involves Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident and Columbia graduate student, who was arrested earlier this month and slated for deportation after serving as a student negotiator during campus protests.
Federal officials openly celebrated Khalil’s arrest, with President Trump lauding ICE’s actions on social media and Secretary Rubio pledging to revoke green cards of anyone labeled a “Hamas supporter”—a characterization the lawsuit calls baseless and defamatory.
Now, Yunseo Chung faces a similar fate. According to the complaint, ICE intends to detain her and transfer her to a remote detention facility, a tactic that would cut off her access to family, legal counsel, and the court hearing her case. If deported, Chung would be sent to South Korea—a country she left as a child and where she has no family or community ties.
“This administration’s claim that Yunseo Chung’s peaceful participation in campus protests threatens U.S. foreign policy is absurd,” said Joshua Colangelo-Bryan of Human Rights First. “The real threat is the government’s unprecedented assertion that it can decide what political speech is acceptable in America and punish immigrants who disagree.”
The lawsuit also exposes how the administration has partnered with pro-Israel groups to compile lists of students for ICE to target, based on their real or perceived support for Palestinian rights. Organizations like Betar USA and Canary Mission have reportedly shared names with federal authorities, fueling ICE’s dragnet.
Chung’s attorneys warn that the administration’s campaign poses a grave threat not only to immigrant rights but to free speech nationwide.
“This is about much more than Yunseo,” Hafetz said. “If the government can deport lawful permanent residents because it doesn’t like what they say, no one is safe. The First Amendment means nothing if political speech can be punished with exile.”
The lawsuit argues that the administration’s actions violate the First and Fifth Amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. It seeks an immediate injunction blocking Chung’s detention and deportation and a broader ruling declaring the administration’s policy unconstitutional.
As of Monday, no hearing date had been set on the emergency motion. Chung remains at risk of detention, with ICE agents reportedly continuing to search for her.
“This is not the America I know,” Chung said in a brief statement through her attorneys. “I came here as a child. This is my home. I should not be forced to choose between my education, my family, and my right to speak up for what I believe is right.”
The case has already drawn national attention, as legal scholars and civil rights groups warn it may set a dangerous precedent for the future of free speech and dissent in America.
If successful, Chung’s lawsuit could halt what her attorneys describe as a “shockingly unconstitutional” policy—a policy that, if left unchecked, threatens to turn the U.S. immigration system into a tool for political retribution.
Cases like this clearly absurd. I don’t understand why Trump isn’t going after persons who were on student VISAs and did things like block access and take over buildings, where he would have broad support. The tactics he is using on this are only garnering support from his most extreme supporters, while creating figures of sympathy with these questionable detentions and possible deportations that are going to rally his opponents.