{"id":443,"date":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=443"},"modified":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","slug":"hoang-noem-cd-cal-grants-tro-vietnamese-detainee-osup-release","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=443","title":{"rendered":"Hoang v. Noem \u2014 C.D. Cal. Grants TRO Ordering ICE to Release Vietnamese Detainee Subject to Pre-Existing Order of Supervision"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Hoang v. Noem<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-12<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-03177<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Temporary restraining order; ICE detention; Order of Supervision (OSUP); Winter factors; Zadvydas v. Davis; due process<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Hung Huu Anh Hoang, a Vietnamese citizen detained by ICE in Adelanto, California, sought a renewed Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order against Department of Homeland Security officials including Kristi Noem, Pamela Bondi, Thomas Giles, James Pilkington, and the Warden of the GEO Group facility. The dispute concerned Hoang’s detention in light of his pre-existing Order of Supervision (OSUP), which had previously released him into the community subject to ICE check-ins and other conditions.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Josephine L. Staton granted the TRO in part. Applying the Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council factors (likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest), the court found Hoang had made a sufficient showing to justify temporary relief.<\/p>\n

The court ordered respondents to release Hoang from custody forthwith, subject to the conditions of his prior OSUP, and enjoined respondents from re-detaining Hoang in a manner inconsistent with their own regulations. The TRO was set to remain in effect through January 26, 2026 unless extended for good cause. The court also issued an Order to Show Cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, with respondents permitted to file additional briefing by January 15, 2026 and Hoang permitted to reply by January 20, 2026. A hearing was set for January 22, 2026.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n