Doe v. Trump

The court held the scheduled hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion on February 13, 2026; after oral argument the court took the matter under advisement and allowed the parties two days to file any supplemental submissions. The judge also said she would consider whether all 197 plaintiffs' declarations need to be filed and will issue further orders.

Plaintiffs filed an agreed motion to add an additional exhibit (the specific policy memo PM-602-0194) to their amended complaint. This explicitly places the challenged policy document into the complaint record.

The court granted the plaintiffs' agreed motion to add the additional exhibit to the amended complaint. The policy memo in question is now part of the complaint record.

The court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms for all 197 plaintiffs and ordered the parties to propose a protective order to keep plaintiff identities sealed from the public. The court found plaintiffs' privacy interests outweighed the public's interest in disclosure in these circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed a supplemental submission tied to their preliminary-injunction motion that includes portions of the administrative record. This supplements the record and briefing after the defendants' filings.

The court granted the agreed motion allowing a portion of the administrative record to be filed. This permits the parties to place selected agency documents before the court for consideration.

Plaintiffs filed an agreed motion to file a portion of the administrative record (the government materials) into the docket. This seeks to introduce official agency documents relevant to the case.

Plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants' opposition to the pseudonym motion, including an affidavit. This further supports plaintiffs' request to proceed anonymously.

The court scheduled an in-person hearing on the plaintiffs' emergency preliminary-injunction motion for February 13, 2026 at 11:00 AM. This sets the date for oral argument on the emergency request.

Plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants' opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion. This is plaintiffs' final brief arguing why the court should grant the emergency injunction.

Defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms, arguing the case should not be anonymous. This contests the plaintiffs' request to keep their identities off the public docket.

Defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. This is the government's formal legal response arguing against the requested immediate relief.

Summonses were returned executed indicating the U.S. Attorney and the named officials/agencies were served with the complaint; the filing lists service dates and the corresponding deadlines to answer. This shows defendants have been formally served and have dates to respond.

Plaintiffs filed a supporting memorandum and a number of declarations to explain why they should be allowed to proceed anonymously. The filing details the privacy and safety concerns of many plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs moved for permission for all 197 plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms (using Doe names) to protect their identities. This asks the court to keep plaintiffs' personal identities out of the public docket.

Plaintiffs filed a revised memorandum in support of their preliminary-injunction motion in accordance with the court's page-limit order. This is the plaintiffs' formal legal argument in support of the emergency relief they seek.

The court granted plaintiffs' request for leave to file a memorandum in excess of 20 pages. The plaintiffs were authorized to refile a longer supporting brief consistent with the court's order.

Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a memorandum exceeding the court's 20-page limit for their preliminary-injunction brief. This was a procedural request to exceed the standard page limits set by local rules.

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to expedite, struck the plaintiffs' overlong memorandum, set page limits and briefing deadlines, and ordered the plaintiffs to file a certification that they conferred with defendants before filing motions. The order governs how the preliminary-injunction motion must proceed.

Plaintiffs filed a supporting memorandum for their preliminary-injunction motion (which included many declarations), but that filing was later struck for noncompliance with the court's rules. The initial brief attempted to support the emergency injunction request but violated local page limits.

Plaintiffs also filed a separate motion asking the court to expedite consideration of their preliminary-injunction motion. This was an attempt to speed up the court's handling of the emergency request.

Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion asking the court for a preliminary injunction to block the challenged USCIS policies and requested expedited consideration. This is the plaintiffs' main request for immediate court intervention.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding many named plaintiffs and attaching exhibits including USCIS policy documents and press releases. This updates and expands the lawsuit's factual and legal allegations.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint asking the court to declare unlawful and set aside certain agency actions (a challenge to USCIS policies). The filing starts the lawsuit against the named government officials and agencies.