Cindy Kyounga Chung

How Judge Chung rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Joseph R. Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
2023-02-21
ABA rating
Well Qualified
Education
Yale University, B.A., 1997; Columbia Law School, J.D., 2002
Signed orders read
13

How Judge Chung decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Keeps wire-fraud analysis focused on deprivation of money or property without adding a personal-benefit or convergence element not found in the statute.

“because the government need not prove either that the scheme was intended to personally benefit Porat or ‘convergence,’ we will affirm.”

Recognizes an accommodation-based pregnancy-discrimination theory when the record supports differential access to light duty.

“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.”

Procedural preferences

Rejects an unnecessarily heightened standing test and remands when purchasers plausibly allege that a contaminated product was worth less than what they bought.

“Court erred in applying a heightened legal standard for standing, we will partially reverse the District Court’s order”

Requires the trial court to consider whether discovery is needed before deciding that parties formed a valid arbitration agreement.

“abused its discretion by failing to consider whether discovery was necessary before deciding that Cornelius and CVS reached a valid agreement to arbitrate.”

For interlocutory criminal appeals, treats selective- and vindictive-prosecution denials as dismissal claims rather than rights not to be tried, placing them outside collateral-order review.

“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.”

Cautions

Treats unverified legal authority as a professional-responsibility failure, including when a lawyer suspects automated research produced inaccurate citations.

“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.

United States v. Moshe Porat
· 2023-08-07
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“Porat or ‘convergence,’ we will affirm.”

United States v. Alice Chu
· 2024-04-25
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s orders and judgment.”

Peifer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
· 2024-07-03
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm in part and vacate in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Huertas v. Bayer U.S. LLC
· 2024-11-07
Appeal (plaintiffs-appellants) Granted

“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.”

United States v. Carolyn Jackson
· 2025-03-21
Appeal (defendants-appellants) Denied

“For the reasons presented above, we will affirm.”

Cornelius v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
· 2025-04-02
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm in part, vacate judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Thankarasa v. Attorney General of the United States
· 2025-04-10
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“Accordingly, we will deny Thankarasa’s petition.”

United States v. Julio Suarez
· 2025-07-24
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.”

Rivera v. New Castle County Police Department
· 2025-08-19
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant) Granted

“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.”

Charles G. Berwind Trust v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
· 2025-10-30
Appeal (taxpayer-appellant) Denied

“forth above, we will affirm the judgment of the Tax Court.”

United States v. Christopher Texidor
· 2026-01-08
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“For these reasons, we will AFFIRM.”

In re Daniel A. Pallen
· 2026-03-27

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