Current stage: Preliminary Injunction
The court has granted preliminary injunctive relief in part, concluding the challenged USCIS policy memoranda are reviewable and likely arbitrary and capricious, and ordered defendants to lift adjudicative holds and stop applying the significant-negative-factor policy as to the plaintiffs identified in the orders. The court consolidated related cases into this lead action, denied a pro se intervenor’s motion to intervene, and ordered immediate lifting of holds for the listed plaintiffs; an initial scheduling conference is set for June 2, 2026 to address case management going forward.
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.
Parties in the related district-court case were ordered to confer and submit a proposed administratively staying order regarding application of PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194.
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).
The defendants were ordered to immediately lift the adjudicative hold as to the 22 plaintiffs who submitted declarations.
The defendants were ordered to cease applying the significant negative factor policy to pending adjustment-of-status and work-authorization applications of the 22 plaintiffs who submitted declarations.
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 identifying which plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm and may be covered by the court’s order.
If parties cannot agree on which additional plaintiffs should be covered, plaintiffs to submit contested declarations (with appropriate redactions) to the Court.
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).
Remote initial scheduling conference before the judge to address case management and scheduling (11:00 AM).
Extracted from court filings. Check linked sources for official deadlines.
May 22, 2026
Opposition re 90 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Joseph B. Edlow, Kristi L. Noem. (Piemonte, Eve) (Entered: 05/22/2026)
May 22, 2026
MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Akmurat O. Doe, All Other Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Hacking, James) (Entered: 05/22/2026)
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
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
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
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 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
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 30, 2026
Key EventThe court issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction: the court found the challenged USCIS memoranda reviewable and likely arbitrary and capricious and ordered defendants to lift the adjudicative hold and stop applying the significant-negative-factor policy to the pending benefit applications of the 22 plaintiffs who submitted declarations; the court also set deadlines for the parties to confer and to submit a status report and, if necessary, contested declarations.
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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to expedite proceedings in this case (a Motion to Expedite).
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
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).
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 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
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.