Current stage: Discovery
The plaintiffs sued to challenge USCIS policy memoranda including PM-602-0194 and sought emergency injunctive relief. On April 30, 2026 the court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction in part—ordering defendants to lift adjudicative holds and stop applying certain policies to plaintiffs who submitted declarations (and later extending relief in the consolidated action)—and the court has since set a discovery and summary-judgment schedule while addressing compliance and follow-up enforcement filings.
Deadlines, hearings, and court-ordered dates from this docket
The plaintiffs may file a motion seeking leave to file a memorandum longer than 20 pages on or before January 16, 2026.
The plaintiffs are ordered to file a certificate stating their attempts to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) on or before January 20, 2026.
In-person motion hearing on the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a preliminary injunction set for 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Julia E. Kobick.
Parties may file supplemental submissions addressing matters raised at the 2/13/2026 hearing; filings are due within two days (by 2026-02-15).
The parties must confer and file a proposed joint protective order governing disclosure of the plaintiffs’ identities within 14 days of the order (deadline: 2026-02-25).
The defendants must file a status report by this date attaching the further operational guidance implementing PM-602-0192.
Defendants served on 1/5/2026 (as listed in the returns of service) have answers due by 3/6/2026.
Defendant(s) served on 1/6/2026 (as listed in the returns of service) have answers due by 3/9/2026.
The parties may file supplemental memoranda of up to 12 pages by this date addressing the pending preliminary-injunction motion in light of the further operational guidance.
Defendant(s) served on 1/15/2026 (as listed in the returns of service) have answers due by 3/16/2026.
Deadline in the related case for defendants’ opposition to the TRO and preliminary injunction (as noted in the opposition filing).
The court granted an extension setting April 15, 2026 as the deadline to file the response or reply.
Deadline in the related case for plaintiffs’ reply to the defendants’ opposition (as noted in the opposition filing).
Defendants are ordered to immediately lift the adjudicative hold as to the 22 plaintiffs who submitted declarations; this obligation is effective as of the order dated 2026-04-30.
Defendants are ordered to immediately cease applying the significant negative factor policy to pending adjustment-of-status and work-authorization applications of the 22 plaintiffs who submitted declarations; this obligation is effective as of the order dated 2026-04-30.
Parties in the newly consolidated case must file a joint statement stating whether the April 30 reasoning requires extension of the preliminary injunction to the consolidated plaintiffs and whether any party requests a hearing.
Defendants were ordered to immediately lift the adjudicative holds as to the listed plaintiffs’ pending benefit applications in the consolidated action.
Defendants were ordered to cease applying the significant negative factor policy to adjudication of the listed plaintiffs’ adjustment-of-status and work-authorization applications.
Parties to file a status report by 2026-05-07 identifying which plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm and may be covered by the Order.
If the parties cannot agree about which additional plaintiffs should receive relief, plaintiffs must submit the contested declarations (with appropriate redactions) to the Court by 2026-05-11.
Each defendant must present to the plaintiff(s) a written response to the plaintiff(s)’ settlement proposal(s) no later than seven days before the scheduling conference (i.e., by 2026-05-26).
Defendants' deadline to file an answer to the complaint in the later-filed consolidated case is due on 2026-06-01.
Remote initial scheduling conference before the judge to address case management and scheduling (11:00 AM).
Remote initial scheduling conference set for 11:00 AM on 2026-06-02 before the court (previously scheduled in ECF No. 88).
Defendants intend to file their opposition to the plaintiffs' May 22 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint by 2026-06-05.
Continued hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief (the entry notes this hearing was previously scheduled for May 29, 2026).
The parties must meet and confer and file a joint status report within one week (by 2026-06-09) proposing deadlines for discovery events and a process for preparing periodic status reports (every 3 weeks to one month) on the plaintiffs’ applications.
Plaintiffs must provide a master status-report template for all plaintiffs within three days of the order (anchored to 2026-06-22), i.e., by 2026-06-25.
Initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) must be completed by this date.
A redaction request for the transcript is due by 2026-07-02.
The redacted transcript must be submitted by 2026-07-13.
First joint status report (to be filed under seal) regarding plaintiffs' pending benefit applications is due on this date; subsequent joint status reports are to be filed every three weeks thereafter.
All requests for production of documents and interrogatories must be served by this date.
All requests for admission must be served by this date.
The cutoff for filing motions seeking leave to add parties or to amend the pleadings is this date.
The transcript restriction is scheduled to be released on 2026-09-09.
All depositions (other than expert depositions) and final fact discovery must be completed by this date; discovery-related motions and supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) disclosures are also due by the close of fact discovery.
Remote status conference before the judge scheduled for 3:00 PM on this date.
Plaintiffs must file their opening motion for summary judgment by this date.
Defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion and their cross-motion for summary judgment must be filed by this date.
Plaintiffs' reply on their motion and opposition to defendants' cross-motion must be filed by this date.
Defendants' reply brief on their cross-motion for summary judgment must be filed by this date.
Extracted from court filings. Check linked sources for official deadlines.
July 6, 2026
A docket entry titled “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” was filed on 2026-07-06. The entry provides no further detail about who filed it, which claims (or plaintiffs) are dismissed, or whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice; the PDF attachment content in the record is not legible in the docket text.
July 2, 2026
The docket entry indicates an affidavit of service was filed stating that service was executed by a large group of plaintiffs on all defendants, and an acknowledgement was also filed by those same plaintiffs; the filing was entered by counsel Lauren E. Allu on 2026-07-02. The document does not state what specific document was served or any further procedural effect.
July 2, 2026
A group of plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal on July 2, 2026. The docket entry reflects the filings by plaintiffs’ counsel but does not state whether the dismissals are with or without prejudice or whether the court has acted to enter or approve the dismissals.
June 22, 2026
The court issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for initial disclosures, discovery (including service deadlines for written discovery and a fact-discovery cutoff), a schedule for summary-judgment briefing, and a remote status conference on September 17, 2026 at 3:00 PM. The order also requires recurring sealed joint status reports (first due July 13, 2026) and a short, three-day task for plaintiffs to provide a master status-report template.
June 22, 2026
Key EventThe court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ Motions to Enforce (ECF Nos. 96 and 101), finding that the government has made diligent, good-faith efforts and has substantially complied with the court’s preliminary-injunction orders. The order notes concern about USCIS customer-service communication failures, directs the government to ensure its systems and representatives accurately reflect the lifted holds, and permits the plaintiffs to renew enforcement motions if future noncompliance occurs.
June 15, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave under Local Rule 7.1(b)(3) to file a limited reply to the defendants’ consolidated response to their Motions to Enforce (ECF Nos. 96 & 101), stating the proposed reply is narrowly focused on addressing a new declaration submitted with the defendants’ filing (ECF 112-1) and will not reargue prior matters. A certificate of service and a proposed reply exhibit were attached.
June 15, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a reply brief responding to the defendants’ opposition to the plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 101), filed on 2026-06-15.
June 15, 2026
The court issued an electronic order granting Motion No. 113 for leave to file a reply to the defendants' response to the motions to enforce; the order directs counsel to file the permitted reply using CM/ECF and to include “Leave to file granted on (date of order)” in the caption.
June 11, 2026
On June 11, 2026 the defendants filed a consolidated opposition to the plaintiffs’ Motions to Enforce (ECF Nos. 96 and 101), arguing the agency is in compliance with the Court’s April 30 and May 7, 2026 preliminary-injunction orders and submitting a declaration from USCIS Deputy Director Angelica Alfonso‑Royals certifying compliance. The defendants further contend many alleged violations arise from inaccurate information provided by USCIS chat or call-center representatives and that the plaintiffs are effectively seeking faster adjudication than the injunction requires.
June 11, 2026
The docket entry records a transcript of the June 2, 2026 scheduling conference and provides the court reporter contact (Catherine Zelinski, CAL.Zelinski.Steno@gmail.com); the transcript may be purchased from the reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or accessed on PACER after release. The entry sets a redaction-request deadline of 2026-07-02, a redacted-transcript deadline of 2026-07-13, and a transcript-release restriction until 2026-09-09.
June 11, 2026
The court reporter filed an official transcript of a proceeding in the case, and counsel are directed to the court’s Transcript Redaction Policy (link provided).
June 9, 2026
The parties filed a joint status report pursuant to the court’s June 2, 2026 order proposing competing schedules and procedures for initial disclosures, written discovery, fact and non-expert discovery completion, a cutoff for adding parties or amending pleadings, summary-judgment briefing schedules, and periodic sealed status reports on plaintiffs’ pending benefit applications; the report also recites standard procedural timing rules and includes a certificate of service dated June 9, 2026.
June 8, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an eighth notice of supplemental authorities in support of their emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, attaching one exhibit. The docket entry reflects only the filing and does not indicate any court action or ruling.
June 3, 2026
An attorney, Lauren E. Allu, filed a notice of appearance on behalf of a large group of plaintiffs in the case and provided her bar number and contact information. The filing does not state any new deadlines, hearings, or requests for relief.
June 2, 2026
The court issued an electronic order granting the motion for Lauren E. Allu to appear pro hac vice and provided instructions that pro hac vice attorneys must register an individual PACER account (with the docket number in the additional filer information), follow the court’s pro hac vice instructions URL, and enter a Notice of Appearance on the docket.
June 2, 2026
Key EventTwo plaintiffs filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice voluntarily dismissing their individual claims with prejudice, stating their immigration applications were adjudicated and they subsequently naturalized, which mooted their claims. Counsel certified conferral under Local Rule 7.1(a)(2), indicated the defendants do not oppose the dismissal, and a certificate of service was filed.
June 2, 2026
The court held a remote scheduling conference on June 2, 2026, granted the motion filed at ECF No. 3 in the consolidated related case for the same reasons it previously granted a similar motion, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 91); the court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report about discovery timelines and periodic status-reporting procedures. The court also instructed that, where possible, plaintiffs should file combined submissions in the consolidated cases and warned plaintiffs' counsel about potential sanctions for failures of candor or professional-responsibility violations.
June 1, 2026
Plaintiffs filed redacted exhibits in support of their Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 96); the docket was modified to add three sealed exhibits (Exhibits A–C) pursuant to the court’s prior order granting the sealed submission (ECF No. 98).
June 1, 2026
The plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave for attorney Lauren E. Allu to appear pro hac vice in this case and paid a $125 filing fee. The entry reflects only the filing of that motion and does not indicate any court ruling or admission.
May 29, 2026
The docket entry indicates that attorney Bronwyn Nayci filed a notice that she is withdrawing her appearance in this case; the entry does not state whether the court has approved the withdrawal or identify any replacement counsel.
May 29, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce the court’s April 30 and May 7 preliminary-injunction orders, alleging USCIS has not implemented those injunctions and attaching declarations and communications they say show agency noncompliance. They ask the court to order, within seven days, expedited discovery on compliance, a written certification from USCIS leadership that a directive to lift the adjudicative hold was issued to all relevant components, and a case-by-case status report confirming holds have been lifted, and they reserve the right to seek further relief including sanctions.
May 28, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court for leave to file exhibits and supporting materials under seal in connection with their concurrently filed motion to compel enforcement of the TRO and preliminary injunction, stating the exhibits contain sensitive personally identifying information (alien numbers) and requesting an opportunity to redact before public filing; the filing notes the defendants take no position on the sealing request.
May 28, 2026
The court issued an electronic order denying the parties’ joint motion to continue the initial scheduling conference pending a ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 91).
May 28, 2026
The court issued an electronic order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to seal (ECF No. 97). The order directs that counsel will receive an email within 24 hours with instructions for submitting the sealed documents under the court’s local rules and requires counsel to include “Leave to file granted on (date of order)” in the caption of the sealed filing.
May 28, 2026
The parties filed a joint scheduling statement after the court denied their joint motion to continue the initial scheduling conference; they report they conferred but could not agree on a case schedule and each side submitted competing proposed timelines and standard procedural provisions. The plaintiffs’ proposal includes discovery and summary-judgment dates (e.g., initial disclosures by 2026-06-15; fact discovery by 2026-08-15; summary-judgment motions by 2026-09-01), while the defendants’ proposal includes different dates (e.g., motions-to-amend cutoff 2026-06-12; answer due 2026-06-01; plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motions by 2026-07-06) and procedural rules for extensions, replies, and discovery disputes.
May 28, 2026
The court issued an order denying the parties’ motion to consolidate a later-filed related case into this action. The judge explained consolidation would be improper because the other case raises different, fact-intensive claims (including APA §§ 555(b) and 706(1) unreasonable-delay and a mandamus claim) that would expand the scope of litigation and cause undue delay.
May 28, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce asking the court to enforce its April 30 and May 7, 2026 preliminary-injunction orders, alleging widespread noncompliance by USCIS and attaching declarations, receipts, and agency communications that they say show applications remain on hold and other implementation problems. They request that the court order measures or procedures to ensure compliance, reserve the right to seek sanctions or contempt later (but do not request contempt now), and state that defendants were notified before filing and are reviewing the exhibits but had not taken a final position.
May 26, 2026
The parties filed a joint motion asking the court to continue the June 2, 2026 initial scheduling conference and to reset the joint scheduling-statement deadline until the court rules on the plaintiffs’ May 22 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; they also ask the court to stay the defendants’ deadline to answer the later-filed complaint until 11 days after the court rules. Plaintiffs’ counsel consented to the requested continuance, and the defendants intend to file an opposition to the amendment motion by June 5, 2026.
May 22, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(2), attaching a proposed amended complaint, a redline, and a plaintiff list; the proposed amendment cites intervening Supreme Court authority, adds post-filing factual developments, and clarifies class allegations and requested APA and Rule 23(b)(2) relief. The motion states the amendment is timely and non‑prejudicial, references the court’s prior preliminary‑injunction rulings, includes a certificate of conferral that contains inconsistent statements about whether the defendants oppose the motion, and was served via CM/ECF on May 22, 2026.
May 22, 2026
Defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate a newly-filed case into the consolidated action, arguing consolidation would expand the case’s scope, require additional briefing, and cause delay; they also noted the plaintiffs did not designate the new case as related and asked the court to deny consolidation.
May 8, 2026
A separate group of plaintiffs moved to consolidate another later-filed action into the already-consolidated lead action, seeking the court to order consolidation and any further case-management relief deemed appropriate.
May 7, 2026
The court scheduled an initial remote scheduling conference for June 2, 2026 at 11:00 AM and set pre-conference requirements, including that defendants must provide written responses to plaintiffs’ settlement proposals no later than seven days before the conference.
May 7, 2026
A mailed copy of the court’s electronic order denying intervention was sent to the pro se proposed intervenor.
May 7, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an order following the joint status report: it granted in part and denied in part prior injunctive requests consistent with the April 30 decision, enjoined defendants from enforcing the adjudicative-hold and significant-negative-factor policies as to the listed plaintiffs in the consolidated case, ordered immediate lifting of the holds and cessation of applying the significant-negative-factor policy to those plaintiffs, and found no security under Rule 65(c) necessary.
May 7, 2026
The parties filed a joint status report stating that defendants reviewed unfiled and filed declarations and do not oppose extending the court’s preliminary-injunction relief to the remaining identified plaintiffs in both consolidated actions; the parties do not request a hearing.
May 7, 2026
The court denied the proposed intervenor’s motion to intervene (both as of right and permissively), concluding he failed to show the required impairment prong and that permissive intervention would unduly delay and expand the litigation; the court also denied as moot his motion for electronic filing.
May 7, 2026
The court denied as moot the plaintiffs’ earlier motion requesting a status conference because a scheduling conference has been set.
May 1, 2026
Key EventThe court granted defendants’ motion to consolidate a later-filed related action into this lead action and ordered the parties in the consolidated case to confer and file a joint statement by May 7, 2026 about whether the earlier injunction should be extended to the newly consolidated plaintiffs and whether a hearing is requested.
April 30, 2026
Key EventThe court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the adjudicative-hold policy and the significant-negative-factor policy as to the 22 plaintiffs who submitted declarations and ordering defendants to lift those holds and stop applying the policy for those plaintiffs. The court directed the parties to confer about extending relief to plaintiffs who did not file declarations, set filing deadlines (May 7 and May 11, 2026), and ruled that no security under Rule 65(c) is required.
April 30, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a seventh notice of supplemental authority reporting a Northern District of California decision that granted in part and denied in part a preliminary injunction and ordered USCIS to resume adjudication of certain pending work-authorization applications.
April 29, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a sixth notice of supplemental authority reporting a District of Maryland decision that granted in part and denied in part relief and that required the agency to file a status report within 90 days regarding certain I-485 adjudications.
April 24, 2026
An appearance of counsel form was filed for a newly listed defendant-side attorney.
April 21, 2026
Defendants filed the certified administrative record and index for the agency decisions and related materials underlying the challenged policies (including the specified policy memoranda, policy alert, executive order, and proclamations).
April 20, 2026
Plaintiffs asked the court to set a short status conference to address case-management questions, including briefing and discovery scheduling.
April 16, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a fifth notice of supplemental authority notifying the court of a recent Northern District of California decision that addressed the same policy memoranda and reported that that court ordered preliminary injunctive relief there.
April 13, 2026
A proposed intervenor filed a notice describing how the defendants’ consolidation motion would affect his pending motion to intervene and asked the court to consider the development in resolving the intervention and consolidation requests.
April 11, 2026
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ consolidation motion arguing consolidation is premature and requesting denial without prejudice, noting a briefing schedule already set in the related case.
April 10, 2026
Defendants moved to consolidate a later-filed related action into this lead action, arguing the cases present identical claims and overlapping parties and proposing a briefing schedule (which was presented as a proposal, not a court-imposed schedule).
April 7, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a fourth notice of supplemental authorities informing the court of a related district-court order that indicated readiness to temporarily stay application of the challenged USCIS memoranda and that the parties in that case were ordered to confer and submit a proposed administratively staying order by April 10, 2026.
April 2, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a reply responding to the defendants’ April 1 status report/response, disputing the defendants’ factual and legal distinctions from other district-court decisions and reiterating their request for injunctive relief.
April 1, 2026
Defendants filed a status report and response addressing plaintiffs’ latest supplemental authority and related agency public materials.
March 30, 2026
A trial attorney for the defendants filed a notice that he is withdrawing his appearance because he will be mobilized to active duty at the end of March.
March 27, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a third notice of supplemental authorities for their pending emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, attaching a recent out-of-district decision and its exhibits.
March 26, 2026
Key EventThe judge granted an agreed request allowing the movant to file a reply in support of a pending motion to intervene and instructed the filer to note the grant date in the caption when filing the reply.
March 26, 2026
A reply in support of the previously filed motion to intervene was filed by the proposed intervenor.
March 26, 2026
A prospective intervenor filed an assented-to motion seeking leave to file a reply in support of his previously filed motion to intervene (ECF No. 53), attaching a cover letter. The entry reflects the filing of that request and does not indicate any court ruling.
March 23, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to intervene (ECF No. 53) on March 23, 2026. The docket entry reflects only the filing of that opposition and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduling action.
March 23, 2026
The defendants filed an opposition to a motion by a prospective intervenor seeking to join the case, asking the court to deny intervention. They argue the proposed intervenor’s claims are independent and properly venued elsewhere, that disposition of this case will not impair his ability to protect his interests and he has adequate representation, that the court lacks jurisdiction over certain immigration-related claims (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) and APA § 701(a) exceptions and that the matters are committed to agency discretion), and that permissive intervention would unduly expand and complicate the litigation by introducing distinct legal theories.
March 19, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants’ Notice Regarding Adjudication of Hold Lift on U.S. Citizen-Filed Forms I-130 (docket entry 61); the docket text was cleaned up and the response was entered on 2026-03-19.
March 18, 2026
The defendants filed a notice concerning the adjudication of a hold-lift on U.S. citizen-filed Form I-130 petitions, attaching two declarations dated March 11 and March 18, 2026; the filing is tied to the previously filed status report (ECF No. 49). The docket text was later cleaned up.
March 16, 2026
The plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion asking the court for permission to withdraw as the plaintiffs’ attorney. The docket entry reflects only the filing of that motion and does not indicate any court decision on the request.
March 16, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an electronic order granting the plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw and terminating attorney Melissa Allen Celli from the case. The entry reflects the court’s formal approval of that withdrawal.
March 16, 2026
A notice of appearance was filed showing attorney Stefanie Fisher-Pinkert has entered an appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case. The filing notifies the court and parties that she will represent the plaintiffs going forward.
March 10, 2026
On March 10, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, submitted pursuant to the court’s February 27, 2026 order (ECF 47).
March 10, 2026
The defendants filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction, submitted pursuant to the court's prior Order 47. The entry reflects the filing of that opposition brief and does not indicate any court ruling.
March 9, 2026
A pro se movant filed a motion requesting permission to file documents electronically. The docket entry reflects the filing of that request and does not indicate any court ruling on it.
March 9, 2026
A prospective intervenor filed a motion to intervene, asserting intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or, alternatively, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). The filing (entered 2026-03-09) includes an exhibit, a cover letter, and a proposed complaint in intervention.
March 9, 2026
A prospective intervenor filed a memorandum in support of their motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or, alternatively, for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). The memorandum responds to Motion No. 53 and was entered on 2026-03-09.
March 6, 2026
The defendants filed an Answer to the amended complaint on March 6, 2026. The docket lists the filing as submitted by counsel Jason Patil.
March 5, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an electronic order granting motion number 46 and extended the deadline to file a response or reply until April 15, 2026.
March 4, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a notice concerning docket entry 49, which is a status report and a request to file that status report after 6:00 PM.
March 3, 2026
On March 3, 2026, the defendants filed a status report titled “STATUS REPORT & REQUEST TO FILE IT AFTER 6PM” and attached a declaration; the filing requests permission to file the status report after 6:00 PM. The entry does not state whether the court granted that requested late filing.
February 28, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authorities in support of their emergency motion for a preliminary injunction and attached one exhibit.
February 27, 2026
Key EventThe court entered an order noting the government told the court at the February 13 hearing that USCIS would issue further operational guidance for PM-602-0192 by March 2, 2026 and for PM-602-0194 by April 1, 2026. The defendants are ordered to file a status report by March 3, 2026 attaching the further operational guidance implementing PM-602-0192, and the parties are allowed to file supplemental memoranda (up to 12 pages) by March 10, 2026 addressing the pending preliminary-injunction motion in light of that guidance.
February 27, 2026
The defendants filed a motion on 2026-02-27 asking the court for an extension of time until April 15, 2026 to file a response or reply. The docket entry does not indicate whether the court has granted or denied that request or identify which filing the response/reply would address.
February 25, 2026
The defendants filed a stipulation titled “Motion for Protective Order,” attaching the text of a proposed stipulated protective order. The filing appears to request entry of a protective order but does not indicate any court ruling or scheduling action.
February 25, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an electronic order granting the stipulated Motion for Protective Order (docket no. 43).
February 25, 2026
The docket shows a document titled “Protective Order” was filed on 2026-02-25. The single-line entry is brief and does not explain the order’s contents or its immediate procedural effect.
February 24, 2026
A notice was filed on 2026-02-24 indicating that an official transcript has been submitted to the court and placed on the docket.
February 24, 2026
On 2026-02-24 a document labeled "Transcript" was filed on the docket. The entry provides no details about which proceeding was transcribed or any substantive content of the transcript.
February 21, 2026
The docket shows a Notice of Supplemental Authorities was filed on 2026-02-21; the entry does not describe the content of the notice or who filed it. The exact procedural effect of this filing is unclear from the entry text.
February 18, 2026
On 2/18/2026 the plaintiffs filed a supplemental addendum to their emergency motion for a preliminary injunction (the filing is labeled an addendum to the motion/memorandum).
February 13, 2026
Key EventA motion hearing on the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a preliminary injunction was held on February 13, 2026; the court allowed the parties to file supplemental submissions within two days (by February 15, 2026), said it will consider whether it needs all 197 plaintiffs’ declarations, and took the matter under advisement.
February 12, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an assented-to motion seeking leave to file an additional exhibit to their amended complaint; the filing includes an attached exhibit labeled “PM-602-0194.”
February 12, 2026
The defendants filed an assented-to notice of errata concerning ECF No. 15 (the plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of a motion), attaching a corrected exhibit; the docket text was modified the same day to clean up the entry.
February 12, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an electronic order granting the parties’ assented motion for leave to file an additional exhibit to the amended complaint. The entry simply records that the motion (ECF No. 35) was granted.
February 11, 2026
Key EventThe court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed pseudonymously for all 197 plaintiffs and ordered that filings use the plaintiffs’ pseudonyms or redact their identifying information. The court also directed the parties to confer about a joint protective order governing disclosure of the plaintiffs’ identities and to file a proposed protective order within 14 days of the order.
February 9, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an electronic order granting an assented motion for leave to file a portion of the administrative record. The order directs counsel to file the document via the Electronic Case Filing System in accordance with CM/ECF procedures and to include “Leave to file granted on (date of order)” in the caption.
February 9, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a supplemental response related to the pending emergency motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 8). The filing includes an attachment labeled “Exhibit Ex. X - Portion of Administrative Record.”
February 8, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an assented-to motion seeking leave to file a portion of the administrative record and uploaded an attachment labeled “Ex. X - Portion of Administrative Record.”
February 6, 2026
On 2026-02-06 the plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants’ response to the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under pseudonyms; the filing includes an attached affidavit.
February 4, 2026
The clerk issued a notice scheduling an in-person motion hearing on the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a preliminary injunction for February 13, 2026 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Julia E. Kobick.
February 4, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a reply brief responding to the defendants’ opposition to the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a preliminary injunction (which had requested expedited consideration). The entry reflects the filing of that reply and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.
February 3, 2026
The defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under pseudonyms (the motion at ECF No. 17). The entry reflects only the filing of that opposition and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduling action.
February 2, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an electronic order granting the listed motion for leave to file a reply that exceeds the 10-page limit and directed counsel to file the overlength reply via the CM/ECF system, including the phrase “Leave to file granted on (date of order)” in the document caption.
February 2, 2026
A notice of appearance was filed indicating attorney Bronwyn Nayci has entered an appearance on behalf of the defendants in this case.
February 1, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court for leave to file a reply brief that exceeds the court’s 10-page limit.
January 30, 2026
The defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 8).
January 23, 2026
Key EventThe judge issued an electronic order granting the defendants’ assented motion for leave to file excess pages in their response to the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction memorandum. The order directs counsel to file the overlength document via CM/ECF in accordance with administrative procedures and to include “Leave to file granted on (date of order)” in the caption.
January 22, 2026
The docket reflects returns of service showing summonses were executed and filed for multiple defendants and the U.S. Attorney, listing specific service dates (1/5/2026, 1/6/2026, 1/15/2026) and corresponding answer due dates; an attachment of electronic mail receipts was included.
January 22, 2026
The docket entry indicates that the defendants filed an “assented to” motion requesting leave to file a response that exceeds the court’s page limits to the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction memorandum (Dkt. 15). The filing was submitted by counsel for the defendants.
January 22, 2026
The docket entry indicates that a notice of appearance was filed showing that an attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of the defendants in this case. The entry does not indicate any court ruling or a change to the case schedule.
January 20, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion to proceed under pseudonyms, accompanied by 16 attachments (numbered 1–16) that appear to include statements and exhibits. The filing is a submission in support of the pending motion and does not indicate any court ruling.
January 20, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission to proceed in the case using pseudonyms (i.e., to keep their real names off the public record).
January 16, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. The docket entry reflects the filing of that supporting brief and does not state any court decision or set any new deadlines or hearings.
January 16, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an exhibit package supporting their memorandum in support of a motion (ECF No. 15), consisting of 22 attached statement exhibits. The entry lists those attachments but does not indicate any court ruling or scheduling action.
January 15, 2026
Key EventOn 2026-01-15 the court issued an electronic order granting motion [13] for leave to file a memorandum in excess of 20 pages and directed counsel to file the overlength document via CM/ECF and to include “Leave to file granted on (date of order)” in the document caption.
January 15, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file a memorandum in excess of the court’s 20-page local-rule limit. The docket entry reflects the filing of that motion and does not indicate any court ruling on the request.
January 13, 2026
A notice of appearance was filed showing attorney Eve A. Piemonte has entered an appearance on behalf of the defendants listed in the case.
January 13, 2026
Key EventThe judge denied the plaintiffs' motion to expedite consideration of their preliminary-injunction motion and struck the plaintiffs' supporting memorandum for violating the court's local page-limit rule. The court allowed the plaintiffs to seek leave to file an overlength memorandum by January 16, 2026, ordered them to file a certificate of conferral under Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) by January 20, 2026, and set briefing timing rules (the defendants will have 14 days to respond after any revised memorandum is filed and the plaintiffs may file a 10-page reply within 7 days of the defendants' response), with a hearing to be scheduled after briefing is complete.
January 12, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to expedite proceedings in this case (a Motion to Expedite).
January 12, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking a preliminary injunction and asked the court for expedited consideration. The entry is a filing and does not indicate any court decision or scheduled hearing.
January 12, 2026
Key EventThe plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their emergency motion for a preliminary injunction (with 23 statement attachments). The entry was later modified to note that the memoranda were struck from the docket on 2026-01-13 pursuant to an earlier court order (referenced as order at 11).
January 2, 2026
On 2026-01-02 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against all defendants attaching several exhibits (PA-2025-26, a USCIS press release, PM-602-0192, and PM-602-01); the docket entry was later modified on 2026-02-12 to add an additional exhibit pursuant to an order granting leave.
December 23, 2025
The clerk issued summonses for the defendants named in the complaint and instructed counsel who received electronic notice to download and complete one summons per defendant and serve them in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and Local Rule 4.1; summonses will be mailed to the plaintiff(s) who did not receive electronic notice for completion of service.
December 23, 2025
Key EventThe court issued an electronic order granting the motion for leave to appear pro hac vice and added James O. Hacking, III as counsel. The order states that attorneys admitted pro hac vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account (not a shared firm account) and may need to link their CM/ECF account, with a URL provided for instructions.
December 23, 2025
The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief and to set aside alleged unlawful agency action against all defendants on 2025-12-23; the $405 filing fee was paid. The filing includes a category form and a civil cover sheet.
December 23, 2025
The plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice to admit attorney James O. Hacking III; a $125 filing fee (receipt AMADC-11436997) was paid and the filing includes bar admissions.
December 23, 2025
The clerk assigned this case to District Judge Julia E. Kobick; the notice states that if the judge refers any matter to a magistrate judge it will go to Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell.
December 23, 2025
The docket entry references General Order 19-02 (dated June 1, 2019) concerning public access restrictions for immigration cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c).