Saghafi v. Edlow

The court granted a consent motion for an extension of time and ordered that the defendants’ deadline to respond to the plaintiffs’ complaint is extended to 30 days after the court issues a ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction; the order is signed by the Chief Judge and dated March 3, 2026. The docket text indicates the defendants’ obligation to file a response is tolled until that post-ruling 30-day period.

The court granted a motion to withdraw counsel and terminated Attorney Kelly M. Marzullo's appearance in the case, in an order signed by Chief Judge George Levi Russell, III on 2/25/2026. The docket entry reflects the court's approval of that withdrawal.

Defendant Joseph B. Edlow filed an opposition to plaintiffs' ex parte discovery motions, arguing against the requested expedited discovery. The filing opposes plaintiffs' effort to obtain immediate discovery from the government.

Defendant Edlow filed the formal opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The government has thereby filed its substantive response opposing emergency relief.

Defendant Edlow moved for permission to file a response brief that exceeds the court's usual page limits by six pages. This is a request to submit an oversized filing in opposition to plaintiffs' motions.

Defendant Joseph B. Edlow filed a subsequent motion for an extension of time to file his response. This is another request to modify the response deadline.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for an extension of time and ordered the defendant to file a response to the plaintiffs’ ex parte application for expedited discovery by February 10, 2026. The order was signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III and did not set a hearing date.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendant's motion for an extension of time, attaching an email from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Plaintiffs appear to be contesting or seeking limits on the requested extension.

The court granted the defendant's motion for an extension of time, setting a new deadline for the defendant to file and serve its response to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on or before February 10, 2026; the order did not set a hearing date or change other scheduling. The order is signed by the presiding judge.

The summonses were returned executed showing that Joseph B. Edlow was served on January 14, 2026, and his answer is due March 16, 2026. This confirms the defendants have been formally served.

Defendant Joseph Edlow filed a motion asking the court for additional time to file his response to the plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion. This is a request to extend the briefing schedule.

A group of plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to block enforcement of the policy while the case proceeds, with supporting memorandum, declarations, and a proposed order. This seeks emergency relief to stop the policy immediately.

The court issued summonses giving the defendants 60 days to respond, directing service on the named U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General. This is the formal step to notify defendants of the lawsuit.

A (slightly different) group of plaintiffs filed a separate ex parte motion for expedited discovery with similar supporting documents and a proposed order. This repeats the request for urgent discovery on behalf of additional plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion seeking expedited discovery from defendants, citing precedent and attaching supporting materials and a proposed order. They ask the court to allow discovery before the usual scheduling because of the urgent nature of their injunction request.

Plaintiffs filed a multi-plaintiff complaint and petition asking the court to declare USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194 unlawful and to issue injunctions and a writ of mandamus; exhibits include the challenged memoranda and related USCIS materials. This starts the litigation challenging the USCIS policy.