Current stage: Motion Pending
The plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (and a mandamus petition) challenging recent USCIS policy memoranda; the case has been assigned to a magistrate judge, and the defendant was served and has appeared. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and the defendant opposed; the defendant also filed motions to dismiss and the plaintiffs have filed responses, so briefing on the key motions is complete but the court has not yet issued any substantive rulings or set a hearing date.
Deadlines, hearings, and court-ordered dates from this docket
Plaintiffs must file any objections to the defendant's expedited extension request by close of business on March 6, 2026; no reply is needed.
Defendant must file any Response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before March 18, 2026.
The defendant must file an answer to the complaint by 2026-04-14.
Extracted from court filings. Check linked sources for official deadlines.
May 5, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a response opposing the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF No. 21); the filing is docketed May 5, 2026 (entered May 6, 2026).
April 27, 2026
On 2026-04-27 the plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching two documents from Saghafi v. Edlow: a memorandum opinion and a court order. The filing appears to provide those authorities for the court’s consideration in the ongoing proceedings.
April 18, 2026
The plaintiff filed a second notice of supplemental authorities in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction, attaching three orders identified as Gao, Wang, and Behdin. The entry reflects the filing of that notice and the attached exhibits.
April 14, 2026
Key EventThe magistrate judge granted the Joint Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages regarding the motion to dismiss, allowing the defendant's motion and the plaintiff's response to be up to thirty-five (35) pages each (excluding case caption, signature block, certificate of service, and table of contents). The court accepted the defendant's Motion to Dismiss as filed.
April 14, 2026
On 2026-04-14 the defendant filed two motions to dismiss—one alleging failure to state a claim and the other alleging lack of jurisdiction—and attached a document labeled “Good Decl.” The filing lists attorney Timothy Jafek as counsel for the defendant.
April 13, 2026
A joint motion requesting leave to exceed the page limit for a Motion to Dismiss was filed and is docketed as submitted by the defendant (counsel Timothy Jafek) on 2026-04-13.
April 7, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authorities in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 8), attaching an exhibit that cites another civil action (No. 1:26-cv-11382-ADB). The filing appears to be an informational submission and does not itself indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.
April 1, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendant’s response to their motion for preliminary injunction, attaching seven exhibits including notices of change in material facts, a news article, an excerpt from oral argument, a White House Twitter item, and several case documents. The filing is recorded on April 1, 2026.
March 18, 2026
On 2026-03-18, the defendant filed a response opposing the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 8), attaching Exhibit A, a declaration of Andrew Good. The filing lists Alexandra J. Berger as counsel for the defendant.
March 6, 2026
Key EventThe magistrate judge granted the defendant's expedited motion for an extension to respond to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and set a new filing deadline of March 18, 2026. The court found no evidence of bad faith in the request, noted concerns about some plaintiffs' expiring statuses, and said it will set a hearing sua sponte after briefing is complete.
March 5, 2026
Key EventMagistrate Judge O'Hara granted the defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file excess pages, allowing a response up to 40 pages (exclusive of the case caption, signature block, and certificate of service). The court reviewed the defendant's opposed expedited motion for an extension and ordered the plaintiffs to file, by close of business on March 6, 2026, any objections based on bad faith or prejudice; no reply is needed, and the defendant's response deadline is stayed pending the court's receipt and consideration of the plaintiffs' filing.
March 5, 2026
The plaintiff filed a response to the defendant's emergency motion seeking an extension of time to file a response/reply to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; the filing includes an exhibit titled “Lawsuits Challenging PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194.”
March 5, 2026
The defendant, through counsel Alexandra J. Berger, filed an emergency motion requesting additional time to file a response/reply to the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 8). The entry reflects the filing of that motion on 2026-03-05 and does not indicate any court ruling.
March 4, 2026
The defendant filed an unopposed motion asking for leave to file excess pages for the defendant's response to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 8). The entry is a filing only and does not indicate any court ruling.
March 2, 2026
The docket entry indicates that attorney Alexandra J. Berger filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the defendant, and Berger was added as counsel of record. The entry was filed on 2026-03-02.
February 18, 2026
Key EventThe court entered an Order of Reference stating that, with the parties' consent, the case is referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), entered by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2026-02-18.
February 17, 2026
The summons was returned executed showing the defendant was served on 2026-02-13; the docket indicates an answer is due by 2026-04-14. Exhibits A–C are attached to the entry.
February 13, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and attached a supporting memorandum, a proposed order, numerous sworn declarations by plaintiffs, and an administrative record from a related Northern District of California case. The filing requests injunctive relief but the entry does not state any court ruling or set any hearing date.
February 12, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a consent to proceed before the magistrate judge; the entry also states that all parties consent to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction.
February 10, 2026
A notice of entry of appearance was filed by attorney Timothy Bart Jafek indicating he represents all defendants; the docket shows Jafek was added as counsel for the defendant. This entry appears to be a counsel appearance filing and does not state any court action or ruling.
February 9, 2026
The clerk issued a summons in the case. The docket entry notes a Magistrate Judge Consent Form was attached.
February 9, 2026
The docket entry indicates the case was administratively assigned to Judge Robert E. Blackburn and is recorded as a text-only entry. The entry does not set or mention any hearings, deadlines, or substantive court orders.
February 9, 2026
Key EventThe court ordered the clerk to reassign the case under D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1 and randomly reassigned it to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara for all further proceedings; future pleadings must be designated 26-cv-00487-TPO. The order was entered by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/9/2026.
February 9, 2026
The court issued a Magistrate Judge consent form under D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1 concerning the direct assignment of civil actions to full-time magistrate judges.
February 8, 2026
A complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and a petition for a writ of mandamus were filed alleging claims against Joseph B. Edlow; multiple plaintiffs are represented by attorney Curtis Lee Morrison. The filing includes exhibits such as two USCIS policy memoranda (Dec 2, 2025 and Jan 1, 2026), an email, online case-status printouts, a civil cover sheet, and a summons.