Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old junior at Columbia University, became an activist to fight back against the Trump administration. She alleges that they are seeking her deportation in retaliation for her participation in the recent pro-Palestinian protests. Chung immigrated to the United States with her family as a young child at the age of seven years old. Since 2021, she has been a permanent resident. Her lawsuit argues that the government’s actions represent a “stunning overreach.” She calls them an “unprecedented and unjustifiable assault” on her rights.
Her role in organizing demonstrations at Columbia University for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee saw Chung arrested by New York police. Her legal fight began when immigration agents served search warrants on two Columbia properties, one of which was her dormitory. They even went to her estranged parents’ house looking for her. The government's move to revoke her permanent residency status has been described in Chung's suit as part of a "larger pattern of attempted US government repression of constitutionally protected protest activity and other forms of speech."
Chung’s attorneys have now filed a federal civil lawsuit. It names as defendants such high-profile figures as Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Kristi Noem. It alleges that the government's actions are intended to "retaliate against and punish noncitizens like Yunseo Chung for their participation in protests."
The case highlights the delicate balance between government power and individual freedoms, especially when it comes to immigration enforcement and protest-related conduct. Chung’s legal team argues vehemently that the government’s actions are both punitive and retaliatory in nature. They highlight her status as an undocumented immigrant and her decades-long history living in the United States.
In response to such situations, an official statement from the US embassy in Estonia highlighted a broader stance on visa holders involved in controversial activities:
"When you apply to enter the United States and you get a visa, you are a guest. Now, if you are in this country to promote Hamas, to promote terrorist organizations, to participate in vandalism, to participate in acts of rebellion and riots on campus, we never would have let you in if we had known that. You lied to us. You’re out."
This very active case continues to highlight the twists and turns of immigration law. Most importantly, it points to the rights of noncitizens engaged in protected protest activities. It pokes at the inadequacies of the response to the difficult tension between national security interests and the federal government’s overarching duty to protect free speech.