Doe v. Noem

The court issued an electronic order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 116) and Supplemental Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Additional Relief (Doc. 150) as superseded by Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery into Defendants' Compliance with the court's May 28, 2025 orders (Doc. 192). The order states the court intends to address the arguments and requests from all three motions together.

A notice of appeal (docket entry 289) has been filed and assigned U.S. Court of Appeals case number 26-1314, indicating the matter is on appeal to the First Circuit.

The court issued a Memorandum and Order on March 25, 2026 denying the defendants’ motion for reconsideration or to stay the injunction (without prejudice to a later motion to modify or terminate the injunction based on the Corrected Certified Administrative Record if plaintiffs’ pending motion is denied) and explicitly leaving the preliminary injunction in effect. The clerk was directed to schedule a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to show cause or to strike supplementation of the administrative record, and defendants were ordered to file an amended opposition with supporting declaration(s); plaintiffs may file a reply within one week after defendants file that amended opposition.

A Notice of Appeal was filed by the defendants on March 25, 2026, appealing the district court’s order that granted a preliminary injunction and the court’s accompanying opinion entered January 24–25, 2026; the filing also identifies substitution of the current DHS Secretary under Rule 25(d). The notice invokes appellate review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and does not itself set appellate deadlines or hearing dates.

On March 11, 2026 the court issued a memorandum resolving plaintiffs’ emergency December 29, 2025 filings by granting leave to file a supplemental pleading that adds five pseudonymous named plaintiffs and by allowing an eighth APA notice‑and‑comment claim only as to the December 2025 DHS actions. The memorandum also reaffirmed the court’s earlier modification of the class definition and appointment of additional class representatives, rejected defendants’ jurisdictional challenge, found plaintiffs have standing, and directed defendants to address the new allegations in their responses.

The judge entered an electronic order granting a motion for leave to file a memorandum of up to 29 pages; counsel are directed to file that memorandum and to include the phrase "Leave to file granted on (date of order)" in its caption.

On Feb. 12, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their response opposing Defendants' motion to dismiss the supplemented complaint (ECF No. 262), defending the supplemental allegations and urging the court to deny dismissal.

Plaintiffs filed a notice attaching the administrative record for the December 2, 2025 USCIS memo underlying their new preliminary-injunction motion.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion seeking preliminary relief against USCIS's benefits-suspension policy.

Plaintiffs filed a new motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin USCIS's benefits suspension memo (PM-602-0192) as to the certified class and asked the court to stay the suspension under 5 U.S.C. § 705.

Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss the supplemented complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the supplemented complaint on January 30, 2026.

Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the motion to expedite discovery into defendants' compliance with the May 28, 2025 orders.

The court granted defendants' motion for clarification and set January 30, 2026 as the deadline for defendants' responsive pleading to the supplemental allegations.

The court issued a memorandum and order granting plaintiffs a preliminary injunction and/or stay of the en masse truncation of Family Reunification Parole.

The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (moving beyond the TRO) — a preliminary injunction order was entered.

Plaintiffs filed a corrected version of the Supplemented Second Amended Complaint to fix numbering errors.

Defendants filed a motion seeking clarification about their deadline to respond to the supplemental allegations in the court's January 9 order.

Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the emergency TRO/preliminary-injunction motion on January 20, 2026.

Defendants filed their memorandum opposing plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (as to the FRP issue) on January 15, 2026.

Defendants filed a further opposition to plaintiffs' motion to modify the class definition, consistent with prior scheduling orders.

Defendants filed and certified the administrative record on January 13, 2026 as directed.

The court granted plaintiffs' motion to modify the class definition (finding the subclass meets Rule 23 requirements); a memorandum will follow.

A formal temporary restraining order was entered by the court (reflecting the fourteen-day emergency stay of the FRP termination for current parolees).

The court granted plaintiffs' emergency request for a temporary restraining order for 14 days, staying the FRP termination as to current parolees and requiring defendants to produce the administrative record and set deadlines for briefing the preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs filed the Supplemented Second Amended Complaint (the supplemental complaint adding the December 2025 allegations and new plaintiffs).

Clerk's notes from the January 9 hearing record that the court heard argument, took motions under advisement, and ordered production of the administrative record and further briefing.

The court granted plaintiffs' third supplemental motion to proceed under pseudonyms for certain plaintiffs.

The court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint under Rule 15(d), allowing new allegations limited to December 2025 actions and certain new plaintiffs, while keeping other amendment requests pending.

Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' supplemental motion to proceed under pseudonym.

Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' emergency motion for a TRO/preliminary injunction/stay regarding the FRP termination.

Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion to modify the class definition.

The court clarified which motions it expects to resolve on the papers and set deadlines: it will resolve the third-amended-complaint and pseudonym motions on the papers and set briefing/argument schedules for emergency relief.

The clerk corrected the hearing notice and reset the hearing for January 9, 2026 (correct year), in person before the judge.

Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

The court ordered defendants to file any opposition to plaintiffs' pseudonym motion, emergency requests, and class-modification motion by January 6, 2026.

The clerk set a hearing on multiple motions for January 9, 2026 (initially misdated), noting the in-person hearing location and time.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum supporting their motion to modify the class definition.

Plaintiffs moved to modify the class definition to add or adjust the subclass affected by recent actions.

Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and stay to block the Family Reunification Parole termination notice as to current parolees.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their emergency motion for a TRO/PI and stay regarding the FRP termination.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum supporting their supplemental motion to proceed under pseudonym.

Plaintiffs filed a third supplemental motion asking to proceed under pseudonyms for certain named plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (proposed supplemental allegations and new named plaintiffs) on December 29, 2025.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs moved to expedite briefing on their emergency and related motions.

Plaintiffs filed a notice pointing to defendants' actions terminating Family Reunification Parole and suspending adjudication of immigration benefits.

Plaintiffs filed a combined statement of material facts with defendants' responses and plaintiffs' replies for the renewed partial summary-judgment motion.

Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their renewed partial summary-judgment motion.

The First Circuit issued its mandate as to another appeal (appeal terminated).

Defendants filed a Local Rule 56.1 response in opposition to plaintiffs' renewed partial summary-judgment motion.

Defendants filed their memorandum opposing plaintiffs' renewed partial summary-judgment motion on CHNV truncation.

Defendants filed a memorandum opposing plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery into compliance with the May 28, 2025 orders.

Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for partial summary judgment about the mass truncation of CHNV parole on November 10, 2025.

Plaintiffs filed their Local Rule 56.1 statement of material facts in support of the renewed partial summary-judgment motion.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum supporting their renewed partial summary-judgment motion.

The First Circuit entered judgment as to defendants' earlier notice of appeal (related docket).

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion to expedite discovery.

Plaintiffs moved to expedite discovery into defendants' compliance with the court's May 28, 2025 orders.

The First Circuit mandate was issued for defendants' appealed matter (appeal terminated).

The court set a briefing schedule after the First Circuit decision: plaintiffs' earlier partial summary-judgment motion was terminated and they were allowed to file a renewed motion by Nov 10, 2025; the court treated defendants' motion to dismiss as fully briefed.

The court denied defendants' motion to stay proceedings related to the lapse in appropriations.

Plaintiffs opposed defendants' motion to stay based on the lapse in appropriations.

Defendants moved to stay proceedings due to a lapse in appropriations.

The clerk's notes reflect the status conference on September 26, 2025; the court asked the government to provide an affidavit clarifying certain application statuses and directed the parties to propose a schedule for discovery and briefing.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum supporting their motion to appoint class counsel.

Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion for a status-conference hearing.

Plaintiffs moved to appoint counsel for the certified class.

The court entered an endorsed order granting plaintiffs' unopposed motion to certify additional class counsel.

The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a hearing and set a status conference for September 26, 2025 (remote).

Plaintiffs filed a corrected memorandum in support of their earlier supplemental motion to show cause.

Plaintiffs moved for a hearing/status conference to address ongoing compliance and implementation problems.

The First Circuit vacated the district court's order granting a stay of a termination notice and remanded the matter to the district court.

The First Circuit issued an opinion regarding one of the appeals originating from this case.

Plaintiffs filed supplemental authority and a defendants' report concerning parole grants to former CHNV parolees.

The court issued a memorandum and order denying preliminary relief as to defendants' suspension of initial parole adjudications for people not presently in the United States.

The clerk's notes record that a status conference was held on July 30, 2025 and that the court had a colloquy with counsel; the court indicated further concerns should be raised first with opposing counsel.

A First Circuit case number (25-1715) was assigned to defendants' appeal.

The district court transmitted the abbreviated electronic record to the Court of Appeals on the appeal defendants filed.

Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the class-certification order and the court's preliminary injunction-related order.

Defendants filed a response to the court's order, including an Alfonso-Royals declaration addressing implementation progress.

The court rescheduled the status conference to July 30, 2025 at 11:00 AM (remote).

The court ordered defendants to address whether diversity visa applications and other benefit adjudications have been resumed and scheduled a status conference; the order requested detailed information and sets a deadline for defendants' response.

The clerk scheduled a remote status conference for July 29, 2025 (later rescheduled).

Plaintiffs submitted a reply Local Rule 56.1 statement addressing defendants' response to the CHNV partial summary-judgment motion.

Plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion asking the court to order defendants to show cause and for additional relief based on continued problems implementing the court's prior orders.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum supporting their supplemental motion for an order to show cause and additional relief.

Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their partial summary-judgment motion concerning CHNV truncation.

IRLI filed its amicus brief opposing plaintiffs' partial summary-judgment motion.

The court granted IRLI leave to file its amicus brief.

IRLI moved for leave to file an amicus brief in this matter.

Defendants filed a memorandum opposing plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment about CHNV truncation.

Defendants submitted their Local Rule 56.1 statement of material facts in opposition to plaintiffs' partial summary-judgment motion.

Defendants filed a response to the court's June 30 order, including a declaration from Kika Scott.

The court ordered defendants to respond to plaintiffs' reply and to provide further details about the vetting process, how many vettings are complete, and a copy of adjudicative guidance by July 1, 2025.

Plaintiffs filed their reply responding to defendants' submissions on the order-to-show-cause issue.

The court ordered defendants to confirm by June 30, 2025 that adjudicative guidance is complete and implemented and that applicants have been properly informed.

Defendants filed another response to the court's order, again with a declaration from Kika Scott reporting implementation progress.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their partial summary-judgment motion on CHNV truncation.

Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment challenging what they call the mass truncation of the CHNV parole program, supported by many exhibits.

The court ordered defendants to confirm by June 19, 2025 that processing holds rescinded under the referenced memo have been removed from case management systems and that communications were updated.

Defendants filed a further response to the court's order, again including a declaration from Acting Deputy Director Kika Scott about implementation steps.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition memorandum to defendants' motion to dismiss.

The court ordered defendants to confirm by June 13, 2025 that the necessary guidance and system updates to resume adjudications had been implemented.

Defendants responded to the court's order, submitting a declaration (Kika Scott) about steps taken to lift holds and resume adjudications.

The court ordered defendants to explain by June 9, 2025 what steps they have taken to resume adjudicating benefits for the certified class and to describe website and automated-message updates.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion for an order to show cause.

Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to order defendants to show cause why they are not complying with the court's prior order (i.e., to explain continued holds/suspensions).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Defendants filed a memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss.

The court vacated its earlier order allowing the extension in light of the Supreme Court's grant of a stay, and told defendants they may refile an extension motion only after conferring with plaintiffs and including a Local Rule certificate.

The court entered an amended order granting class certification in part and superseding its earlier class-certification order.