Cindy Kyounga Chung
How Judge Chung rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Chung
Cindy Kyounga Chung is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Chung received a commission on February 21, 2023.
Judge Chung's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Chung's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
- Third Circuit Motions Practice ↗
- Motions to Exceed the Page or Word Limitations ↗
- Motions for Extensions of Time and Clarification of L.A.R. 110 ↗
- Vacating Option B for Filing of an Appendix ↗
- Reduced Number of Copies of Briefs Required ↗
- Stays in Immigration Cases ↗
- Submission of Audio and Video Files ↗
How Judge Chung decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Porat, Chung affirmed a wire fraud conviction after holding that the government did not have to show personal benefit to Porat or convergence between the person deceived and the victim.
“because the government need not prove either that the scheme was intended to personally benefit Porat or ‘convergence,’ we will affirm.”
In Peifer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Chung held that the denials of light duty requests supported a prima facie pregnancy discrimination claim under a failure to accommodate theory.
“that Peifer makes out a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination based on the Board’s denials of her light-duty requests under a failure to accommodate theory.”
In Talarico v. Public Partnerships, Chung affirmed a finding that the defendant was not a joint employer. She considered its limited control over the workers even though the listed factors were evenly split.
“our analysis is not a counting exercise.”
Procedural preferences
In Huertas v. Bayer, Chung partially reversed a standing dismissal after finding that the district court applied too demanding a standard to purchasers who alleged that contaminated products were worth less than promised.
“Court erred in applying a heightened legal standard for standing, we will partially reverse the District Court’s order”
In Cornelius v. CVS Pharmacy, Chung vacated the arbitration ruling because the district court had not considered whether discovery was needed to decide if the parties formed an agreement.
“abused its discretion by failing to consider whether discovery was necessary before deciding that Cornelius and CVS reached a valid agreement to arbitrate.”
In United States v. McIver, Chung held that denials of selective enforcement and prosecution claims were outside collateral order review because they did not confer a right to avoid trial.
“We agree and hold that the conclusion in Hollywood Motor Car applies to selective enforcement and prosecution claims. Like vindictive prosecution claims, these claims do not implicate a right not to be tried, but instead involve only a right to have charges dismissed if the court determines they were brought for an impermissible reason.”
In Lewald’s disability appeal, Chung remanded the prisoner’s ADA claim after the district court left an asserted basis for overcoming sovereign immunity unresolved. She left further record development and the immunity issue for that court.
“We are a court of review and do not address arguments in the first instance.”
Cautions
In a disciplinary opinion arising from McCarthy v. DEA, Chung found that counsel violated court rules by submitting inaccurate legal authorities without checking them, even after the errors were identified.
“The attorney failed to verify the legal authority in any way. Unfortunately, the research contained myriad inaccuracies.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s orders and judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm in part and vacate in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint as to Plaintiffs Huertas, Mistretta, Wyant, and Poovey and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the reasons presented above, we will affirm.”
“For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm in part, vacate judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Accordingly, we will deny Thankarasa’s petition.”
“For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate and remand the District Court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“forth above, we will affirm the judgment of the Tax Court.”
The court imposed a reprimand after counsel repeatedly failed to verify inaccurate authorities and did not remediate the problem after receiving notice.
Draft for Judge Chung with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Chung, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Chung's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace