136 F.4th 382
2d Cir.2025Background
- Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts, was lawfully present in Massachusetts on a student visa when arrested by federal officers without warning and quickly transported across multiple states, ending up in Louisiana.
- The government revoked her visa based solely on her co-authorship of an op-ed critical of university policies regarding Palestine and Israel, allegedly linking her to organizations adverse to U.S. foreign policy.
- Öztürk’s counsel filed a habeas petition in Massachusetts after her disappearance; it was then transferred to Vermont (where she was in transit at the time of filing) and later amended as she remained detained in Louisiana.
- The District of Vermont ordered the government to transfer Öztürk to Vermont for habeas proceedings, rejecting the government’s arguments that jurisdiction and certain statutory bars precluded judicial review.
- The government sought an emergency stay and mandamus relief to block her transfer pending appeal, arguing lack of jurisdiction and harm; the government’s requests were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Öztürk’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Habeas Jurisdiction (District and Custodian) | District of Vermont had jurisdiction as she was present in transit and her custodian was unknown | Petition was not filed in the correct district and did not name the immediate custodian | Jurisdiction proper; Vermont was district of confinement when filed and custodian unknown exception applied |
| Jurisdiction-Stripping by INA | INA does not clearly strip jurisdiction for habeas claim challenging detention, not removal | Several INA sections bar district court review of her detention | Statutory bars do not clearly apply; court retains jurisdiction over detention claims |
| Irreparable Injury if Stay Denied | No irreparable injury to government; removal proceedings continue, only physical presence for habeas at issue | Government suffers harm when enjoined from effectuating laws, logistical burden | No irreparable injury shown; status can be restored if government prevails later |
| Mandamus Relief Appropriateness | No extraordinary circumstances; district court had authority to rule as it did | District court usurped power commanding transfer, justifying mandamus | Mandamus inappropriate; district court acted within general authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (habeas jurisdiction must be in district of confinement, naming immediate custodian—exception when custodian unknown)
- Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (narrow construction of § 1252(g) bars only limited kinds of judicial review over immigration actions)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (challenging detention is not the same as challenging removal for jurisdictional purposes)
- Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (district court retains habeas jurisdiction even if government transfers petitioner after properly filed petition)