Doe v. Trump

This filing is the plaintiffs’ reply to the defendants’ April 1 status report (dkt. 70), arguing that USCIS did not issue the promised operational guidance by the 90‑day deadlines and that recent agency statements show certain benefits (OPT for Iranian nationals) are being treated as “banned” and “will not be processed,” which plaintiffs contend reflects final agency action and a new rationale (protecting U.S. STEM wages). The reply reiterates plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, cites the February 13, 2026 hearing transcript and other record materials, distinguishes recent case law, and was served on defendants via CM/ECF on April 2, 2026; it does not record any court order or new hearing date.

The court issued an electronic order granting an assented-to request for leave to file a reply in support of the pending motion to intervene (ECF No. 53), and directed the filer to submit the reply with the required caption language noting the leave grant. The order simply authorizes filing the reply; it does not state any ruling on the underlying motion to intervene.

The court entered an electronic order granting the previously filed motion to withdraw as attorney for the plaintiffs and terminated Melissa Allen Celli as counsel of record. The entry indicates the court approved the withdrawal.

A document titled 'MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs' was filed; the docket entry lists Melissa Celli in connection with that filing. The motion requests that counsel be allowed to withdraw from representing the plaintiffs.

The government defendants filed a supplemental memorandum opposing the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, submitted in response to the court's prior order directing supplemental briefing. This filing updates the defendants' arguments against granting preliminary relief in light of recent developments and operational guidance.

The same individual filed a motion seeking permission to file electronically in the case while appearing pro se.

The prospective intervenor filed a memorandum in support of the motion to intervene, explaining the legal basis for joining the litigation.

An individual filed a motion to intervene in the case, asserting intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) or, alternatively, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B), and attached a proposed complaint and supporting exhibits.

The court entered an order granting a motion for an extension of time, setting the deadline to file the response/reply as April 15, 2026. The electronic order memorializes the court's grant of that extension.

The court ordered defendants to file a status report by March 3, 2026 attaching the further operational guidance implementing PM-602-0192, after noting at the February 13 hearing that the government said it would release operational guidance for PM-602-0192 by March 2, 2026 and for PM-602-0194 by April 1, 2026. The court also gave the parties leave to file supplemental memoranda of up to 12 pages on or before March 10, 2026 addressing the pending motion for a preliminary injunction in light of that further operational guidance.

The judge granted the parties' stipulated protective order, formally adopting agreed rules limiting public disclosure of the plaintiffs' identities and governing how those identities may be shared with defense counsel and the court. This implements the court's earlier order allowing the plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously and controls handling of sensitive documents and identifying information.

A protective order was filed on the docket (the stipulated protective order itself), setting out procedures for confidentiality and the disclosure of plaintiffs' identifying information and related materials. This formalizes the confidentiality regime the parties proposed following the court's pseudonymity ruling.

The parties jointly filed a motion asking the court to enter a stipulated protective order and attached the proposed order text; the filing is intended to govern how plaintiffs' identities and other sensitive information will be handled. This implements the Court's prior direction to confer and propose a protective order after allowing pseudonymous litigation.

Plaintiffs filed a supplemental addendum to their pending emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, submitting additional material or argument after the Feb. 13 hearing. This supplements the briefing the court allowed following the hearing.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.