Liu v. Noem
777 F.Supp.3d 83
D.N.H.2025Background
- Plaintiff Xiaotian Liu, a Ph.D. student at Dartmouth, filed suit after his F-1 student status was terminated in the SEVIS system by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
- Liu asserts DHS's actions were unlawful, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and due process under the Fifth Amendment.
- Liu sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the termination of his F-1 status, arguing imminent risk of detention, deportation, and academic harm.
- The court held expedited hearings where the defendants' counsel requested time to fully respond, and could not assure Liu would not be detained or deported.
- The court evaluated whether to grant a TRO, considering likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, and public interest.
- The court found that Liu had a likelihood of success on his APA claim, irreparable academic and personal harm, and granted the TRO, enjoining the termination of his status pending further hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of F-1 Status Termination | DHS's action was arbitrary and violated the APA. | Did not substantively argue at hearing; claimed need for more time. | Likelihood Liu will succeed on APA claim; TRO granted. |
| Irreparable Harm | Would lose research employment, stipend, risk academic derailment, possible detention or deportation. | Only concern: potential interference with ICE operations. | Irreparable harm established; favors plaintiff. |
| Balance of Hardships/Public Interest | Plaintiff faces severe, immediate consequences; Congress favors educational opportunities for foreign students. | Concern over interference with ICE duties. | Favors plaintiff; TRO will not substantially impair government. |
| Bond Requirement | Should be waived given circumstances. | Not substantively opposed at hearing. | Bond requirement waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coquico, Inc. v. RodrÃguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2009) (sets out four-factor test for TROs and preliminary injunctions)
- Does 1-6 v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2021) (public interest and balance of hardships merge when government is a defendant)
- Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, & Packers, 679 F.2d 978 (1st Cir. 1982) (court may waive bond for TRO under Rule 65(c))