Doe v. Noem

Defendants filed a notice of correction to a previously submitted declaration (ECF No. 293), attaching a corrected declaration for the record. The notice updates the docket to reflect a corrected factual submission by defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a fourth notice of supplemental authorities (May 6, 2026) citing multiple recent federal decisions that the plaintiffs say support their motion for preliminary injunctive relief against the agency's benefits-suspension memoranda. The filing supplies case law but does not itself change any court order.

Plaintiffs filed another notice of supplemental authorities (May 5, 2026) attaching transcript excerpts from a recent appellate oral argument and arguing the government's concessions there support plaintiffs' positions in their summary-judgment motion. The filing supplements plaintiffs' pending substantive motions with additional authority.

Defendants filed a notice advising the court that they identified an error in a previously submitted declaration and are preparing a corrected declaration to be filed promptly. The notice is administrative and does not dispose of any issue.

Plaintiffs filed a response to defendants' notice about lifting certain processing holds, arguing the lifted categories do not appear to apply to the class or core benefits at issue and that the defendants' representations support plaintiffs' request for preliminary relief. The filing is a response brief and not a court ruling.

An attorney on the plaintiffs' team filed a notice of a change of address or firm name reflecting a new firm address. This is an administrative docket update and does not affect the substance of the litigation.

Defendants filed a notice informing the court that the agency had lifted certain processing holds for some categories of applications, citing a public USCIS news alert; the notice does not assert that the holds covered by the pending motions were fully lifted. The filing is informational and does not represent a court ruling.

Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion to show cause or to strike the corrected administrative record, arguing the record compilation was legally insufficient and asking the court to order production of all documents the decisionmakers considered and a privilege log for withheld materials. The reply asserts plaintiffs may seek discovery if necessary.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their renewed summary-judgment motion, directing the court's attention to a recent district-court decision addressing limits on parole termination and related procedural issues. The filing supplies additional case law for the court to consider.

Defendants filed a declaration describing how they compiled and corrected the administrative record, explaining that certain documents were inadvertently omitted from the original certified record and were later added during a correction process. The declaration provides factual background about the omission and supplementation.

Defendants filed a supplemental memorandum opposing plaintiffs' motion to show cause or to strike, defending the corrected administrative record and asking the court to treat the five added documents as properly part of the record. The filing also references the court's prior orders and the ongoing dispute over the record.

The Court of Appeals assigned an appellate case number (26-1314) for the appeal of the district court's preliminary-injunction order. The entry records the appellate docket number but does not reflect any appellate action beyond docketing.

The district clerk certified and transmitted an abbreviated electronic record to the Court of Appeals in connection with defendants' notice of appeal, listing key district-court documents included in the abbreviated record. This is a clerical transmission to initiate the appellate record.

Judge Indira Talwani: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. See attached.For the foregoing reasons, the clerk shall set Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause, or in the Alternative, to Strike Improper and Untimely Supplementation of the Administrative Record [Doc. No. 283 ] for a hearing. Defendants shall file an amended opposition, and declaration(s) as appropriate, to support their contention that the late-discovered documents were part of the record c onsidered by DHS in issuing the December 15, 2025 Federal Register Notice. No later than one week after Defendants file their amended opposition, Plaintiffs may file a reply.Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration or Stay [Doc. No. [277 ]] is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a motion to modify or terminate the injunction based on the Corrected Certified Administrative Record [Doc. No. 276 -1], if Plaintiffs' pending motion is denied.IT IS SO ORDERED. (SEC)

Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit seeking review of the district court's preliminary-injunction order and related memorandum; the filing triggered appellate processing and instruction about appellate filing requirements. The entry is a notice of appeal and does not reflect an appellate decision.

Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion to show cause, defending their March 6 filing of a corrected administrative record and arguing the correction was proper and not prejudicial. The filing asks the court to deny plaintiffs' motion to strike or to order an accounting.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum supporting their motion to show cause or to strike defendants' supplementation of the administrative record, arguing the correction was untimely, problematic, and raises questions about how the record was compiled. The memorandum asks the court for detailed disclosures or to strike the added materials.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' reconsideration/stay motion, arguing the corrected administrative record does not support dissolving the injunction and opposing a stay pending appeal. The filing responds to defendants' legal and factual claims but does not indicate any court action on the motion at that time.

Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to order defendants to show cause why defendants' March 6 "corrected" administrative record should not be struck as an improper and untimely supplementation, or alternatively to strike that supplementation. The motion seeks a detailed accounting of how the original record was compiled and why the documents were omitted.

A declaration from plaintiffs' counsel was filed in support of plaintiffs' motion to show cause or strike, attaching an email exchange about defendants' request to file a corrected administrative record. The declaration supports plaintiffs' claim that the supplementation was improper or untimely.

Plaintiffs filed a notice identifying supplemental legal authority in support of their pending motion for a preliminary injunction concerning the agency benefits-suspension. The filing supplies a recent case for the court to consider but does not itself request relief.

Counsel for the plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw from the case, stating the attorney is leaving the firm and that other counsel of record will continue representing the plaintiffs; the motion asked the court for leave to withdraw. The entry does not state whether the court had granted or denied leave at the time of filing.

Defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion for reconsideration or stay, arguing jurisdictional and merits-based reasons for dissolving the injunction and asking the court to decide the motion before the appeal deadline. The filing notes the appeal deadline for the preliminary-injunction order as 2026-03-25 but does not report any court decision on the motion.

On March 6, 2026, defendants filed a supplemental declaration correcting and updating prior USCIS counts related to the December 2025 FRN: it reports a revised estimate of about 140 legacy Cuban FRP beneficiaries still in an initial parole period who may be subject to termination, states that USCIS has not identified legacy Haitian FRP beneficiaries whose parole will be terminated, explains prior overcounts resulted from data‑validation issues, corrects an earlier figure about notices (saying 3,589 modernized FRP parole‑termination notices were pushed out on January 5, 2026 and that fewer than 4,200 from the originally identified population remain without a notice), and says counts are subject to further review before any new termination notices are issued. The filing references the court's January 10, 2026 TRO and January 24, 2026 preliminary injunction and was served via CM/ECF on March 6, 2026.

Defendants filed a notice attaching an amended certification dated March 6, 2026, correcting the certified administrative record previously filed on January 13, 2026 to include documents the court identified as missing in its opinion granting a preliminary injunction. The notice and amended certification were served via CM/ECF to counsel of record.

Defendants filed a motion asking the court to reconsider or dissolve the court's January 2026 preliminary injunction, or alternatively to stay that injunction pending appeal; the docket text states responses were due by 2026-03-20. The filing asks the court to decide the motion before the appeal deadline, but the entry does not say the court has ruled.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authorities in support of their pending motion for a preliminary injunction and stay (ECF No. 264), attaching two exhibits: Varniab v. Edlow and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. The filing was entered on 2026-02-27.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching the government’s motion to dismiss in a separate case (Fuenmayor) in which the government purportedly conceded that the December 2, 2025 USCIS policy memo effectively prevents USCIS from adjudicating certain benefit applications. Plaintiffs explain how that concession supports four arguments in their pending motion for a preliminary injunction and stay, state they have no reply as of right, and offer to provide further briefing if the court directs.

The government defendants filed a memorandum opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and stay of USCIS’s benefits-suspension as to the certified class, arguing the court lacks jurisdiction (including that the agency action is non-final and committed to discretion), that plaintiffs lack standing, that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits, and that they cannot show irreparable harm or favorable equities. The memorandum asks the court to deny the motion, seeks any relief to be limited to certified class members, requests that any injunction be stayed pending appeal (or administratively stayed for 14 days to permit seeking expedited relief), and notes the court granted leave to file on February 13, 2026.

The defendants filed a notice of supplemental authorities responding to the plaintiffs' notice of supplemental authority (ECF No. 267) concerning the plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Discovery (ECF No. 192), and attached an affidavit/declaration of Lynn Q. Feldman. The entry reflects that the document was filed on 2026-02-13 and does not indicate any court ruling.

The court entered an electronic order granting the motion at docket no. 269 for leave to file a memorandum of up to 29 pages and directed counsel to file the granted document via the CM/ECF system. The order also requires counsel to include the phrase "Leave to file granted on (date of order)" in the document caption.

The defendants filed an unopposed motion asking for permission to file a brief that exceeds the court’s page limits; the entry reflects the filing on 2026-02-13 and does not indicate any court ruling or deadline.

The plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the supplemented complaint (docket no. 262). The filing, submitted by counsel Justin Cox, is docketed as the main-document response to that motion.

The docket entry appears to reflect that a filing labeled “Main Document” was added on 2026-02-10; the entry provides no description of the document’s contents or any court action or ruling.

The plaintiffs filed a notice in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction and stay of USCIS's benefits-suspension (relating to Doc. No. 224/264) and attached the administrative record for the December 2, 2025 USCIS memorandum. The filing was entered on February 9, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion seeking a preliminary injunction and a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705 concerning USCIS's suspension of benefits as to the certified class, attaching an index of exhibits and a proposed order. The filing was entered on 2026-02-03.

The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and a stay under 5 U.S.C. §705 of USCIS's benefits-suspension as to the certified class; the filing includes multiple exhibits (e.g., a USCIS memo and several declarations). The docket notes that responses to the motion are due by February 17, 2026.

On January 30, 2026, the defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss the supplemented complaint. The entry is a supporting brief for the defendants' pending motion to dismiss and does not indicate any court ruling.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the supplemented complaint on January 30, 2026; the filing includes a proposed order as an attachment.

The plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants' response to the plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Discovery into defendants' compliance with the court's May 28, 2025 orders; the docket notes the court granted leave to file the reply on January 26, 2026. The filing was entered on January 26, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a corrected supplemented Second Amended Complaint against all defendants and attached a redline identifying corrected paragraph/numbering on pages 120–128 compared to a prior filing (Doc. No. 239).

The plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants' Motion for Clarification (docket no. 254) concerning the court's prior order at docket no. 238, and attached an exhibit consisting of meet-and-confer correspondence regarding Defendants' Motion for Clarification. The filing was entered on January 23, 2026.

The defendants filed a motion asking the court to clarify its prior Order at ECF No. 238 concerning the defendants' deadline to respond to the supplemental allegations; the filing includes an incorporated memorandum of law and a proposed order. The motion was docketed on 2026-01-22.

The plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants' response to their Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Motion to Stay the Family Reunification Parole Federal Register notice as to current parolees before January 14, 2026; the reply was docketed on January 20, 2026. The entry is a filing by the plaintiffs and does not indicate any court ruling or outcome.

The government defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' Emergency Motion (ECF No. 216), specifically opposing the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction related to the FRP Federal Register notice. The filing was entered on January 15, 2026.

The defendants filed a second opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the Class Definition (Docket No. 219), labeled a “Further Opposition” and stating it was filed in accordance with Docket Nos. 229 and 247. The filing was entered on January 15, 2026.

The docket entry shows that on 2026-01-15 a declaration was filed in opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion (ECF No. 216). The submission includes the Declaration of James Kernochan as an attachment.

On 2026-01-14, the defendants filed a motion requesting leave to file a memorandum that exceeds the court's page limits (a motion for leave to file excess pages).

The defendants filed a notice that they have filed the certified administrative record, attaching two parts labeled "Certified Administrative Record Part 1" and "Certified Administrative Record Part 2."

A transcript of the motion hearing held on January 9, 2026 before Judge Indira Talwani was filed; it may be purchased from the court reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or on PACER after release. The docket entry sets a redaction-request deadline of 2026-02-02, a redacted-transcript deadline of 2026-02-11, and a transcript release restriction lift date of 2026-04-13.

The court reporter filed an official transcript of a proceeding in this case. The notice directs counsel to the court’s Transcript Redaction Policy on the court website.

The plaintiffs filed an amended pleading titled a “Supplemented Second Amended Complaint” against all defendants, and that filing was entered on January 9, 2026.

Attorney Katie Rose Talley filed a notice of appearance indicating she will represent the defendants and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this case. The filing was entered on January 7, 2026.

Attorney Javier Ortega filed a notice of appearance indicating he will represent the plaintiffs in this case; the filing was entered on January 7, 2026.

On 2026-01-07, attorney Kathleen Weng filed a notice of appearance stating she will represent the plaintiffs in this case. The entry is a docketed notice of counsel appearance and does not indicate any court action or scheduling.

On January 6, 2026, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (docket no. 214). The entry reflects the filing of that opposition and does not indicate any court ruling.

The defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Class Definition (Docket No. 219). The entry is a filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Motion to Stay the FRP Federal Register notice as to current parolees dated before January 14, 2026; the opposition was docketed on January 6, 2026. The entry is the filing of that opposition and does not indicate any court ruling or further action by the judge.

The defendants filed a consent motion seeking leave to file an oversized brief in response to the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (referencing Docs. No. 216 and 218); the filing includes a proposed order. The entry is a motion filing and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduling.

The clerk reset the in-person motion hearing for January 9, 2026 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Indira Talwani, noting the prior entry had the incorrect year. The hearing covers several pending motions (ECF Nos. 216, 212, 214, 219, and 221).

The defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 212). The entry reflects the filing of that opposition and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

On 12/31/2025, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Briefing (Docket No. 221). The entry reflects the filing of that opposition and does not state any court decision or scheduled hearing.

Defendants filed an exhibit consisting of the Federal Register notice titled “Termination of Family Reunification Parole Processes for Colombians, Cubans, Ecuadorans, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and Salvadorans,” cited at 90 Fed. Reg. 58032; the filing was docketed on 2025-12-31.

Defendants filed an exhibit consisting of a USCIS Policy Memorandum titled "Hold and Review of all Pending Asylum Applications and all USCIS Benefit Applications Filed by Aliens from High-Risk Countries," PM-602-0192 (dated Dec. 2, 2025). The docket entry is an exhibit filing and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled event.

The judge entered an electronic order requiring defendants to file any responses to three pending motions (Plaintiffs' Third Supplemental Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym [214]; Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and/or Stay [216]; and Motion to Modify Class Definition [219]) by January 6, 2026.

The court issued a notice scheduling a motion hearing on several pending motions (ECF Nos. 216, 212, 214, 219, and 221). The notice states the hearing is set for 1/9/2025 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 9 (in person only) before Judge Indira Talwani.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court for leave to file a third amended complaint and submitted a proposed third amended complaint (Exhibit A), a redline of changes (Exhibit B), and a proposed order as attachments. The docket entry is the filing of that motion and does not indicate any court decision.

On December 29, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to expedite briefing in the case and attached a proposed order.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their pending motion to modify the certified class definition (docket no. 219). The entry is a supporting brief and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to modify the certified class definition and attached a proposed order in support of that request. The entry reflects only the filing of the motion and does not indicate any court ruling or schedule.

The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a stay of the Family Reunification Parole (FRP) Federal Register notice as to current parolees with parole dates before January 14, 2026. The filing includes attachments: an FRP FRN dated December 15, 2025, an FRN dated December 28, 2020 relating to Haitian FRP and FWVP, and a proposed order.

On 2025-12-29, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their supplemental motion to proceed under pseudonym and attached an appendix of exhibits. The filing supplies supporting argument and exhibits for the pending motion but does not indicate any court decision or scheduled hearing.

The petitioners filed a supplemental motion seeking permission to proceed under pseudonym, attaching an exhibit labeled FRP Termination FRN, multiple declarations from individuals identified as Doe declarants, and a proposed order. The entry reflects only the filing of that supplemental motion and does not indicate any court action or ruling.

Defendants filed a notice concerning the plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (docket no. 212). The entry reflects the filing of that notice on 2025-12-29 and does not indicate any court action or ruling.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a stay of the Family Reunification Parole (FRP) Federal Register notice as to current parolees with parole dates before January 14, 2026; the filing includes an index of exhibits and was entered on December 29, 2025.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (related to Motion No. 212); the memorandum was filed and entered on 12/29/2025.

The plaintiffs filed a notice informing the court that they intend to make upcoming filings about the termination of Family Reunification Parole and the suspension of adjudication of immigration benefits. The notice does not specify any dates, deadlines, or the specific content of those forthcoming filings.

The plaintiffs filed a notice informing the court of defendants' actions terminating Family Reunification Parole and suspending adjudication of immigration benefits.

The plaintiffs filed a Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 196) that includes the defendants' responses and the plaintiffs' replies; the filing was entered on December 8, 2025.

The plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants' response to the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment challenging the mass truncation of CHNV parole; the reply was docketed on 2025-12-08.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court for leave to file a reply in support of their pending motion to expedite discovery into defendants’ compliance with the court’s May 28, 2025 Order. The filing includes a proposed reply and a proposed order as attachments.

The defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment challenging the alleged mass truncation of CHNV parole; the memorandum was filed and entered on 2025-11-25.

The defendants filed an appendix/exhibit described as the Administrative Record in support of their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, uploading 13 labeled parts of the administrative record as attachments.

On 2025-11-25, the defendants filed a Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts. The filing responds to the plaintiffs' 56.1 statement in connection with the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment challenging the alleged mass truncation of CHNV parole.

The defendants filed a consent motion requesting an extension of time to November 25, 2025 to file their response/reply to the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment; the entry is the filing of that motion and does not indicate whether the court has ruled on it.

Defendants filed an index and exhibits in opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Discovery (ECF No. 192), attaching a counsel declaration, the Alfonso‑Royals declaration, and excerpts from CAR. The filing appears to be documentary evidence submitted in opposition and does not itself set any deadlines or orders.

On 2025-11-19, the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Discovery (ECF No. 192), which sought expedited discovery into the defendants' compliance with the court's May 28, 2025 orders. The entry is a filing of that opposition brief and does not indicate any court ruling.

On 2025-11-10 the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 196) challenging the alleged mass truncation of CHNV parole.

On 2025-11-10 the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment challenging the mass truncation of CHNV parole; the filing includes two declarations by Blas Nuez‑Neto and a proposed order. The docket entry reflects only the motion filing and attachments and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The plaintiffs filed a Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts in support of their pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment challenging the mass truncation of CHNV parole, attaching an index of exhibits. The filing was entered on 2025-11-10.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their pending Motion to Expedite Discovery into Defendants' compliance with the court's May 28, 2025 orders, attaching one exhibit labeled Exhibit A. The entry is a supporting brief for Docket No. 192 and does not state any court action or schedule a hearing.

On 2025-11-05, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to expedite discovery into the defendants’ compliance with the court’s May 28, 2025 orders and attached a proposed order. The docket entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled deadline.

An attorney, Brian Ward, filed a notice of withdrawal of appearance in the case on 2025-10-15; the docket entry records the filing and does not state any further court action or replacement counsel.

The docket entry indicates that the defendants filed an exhibit in support of their opposition to the motion at docket no. 180, attaching a document titled “Supplemental Alfonso‑Royals Declaration.”

The court reporter filed an official transcript of a proceeding in this case, and counsel are directed to the court’s Transcript Redaction Policy available on the court website. No further details or deadlines are included in this notice.

The docket entry notes that a transcript of the status videoconference held on September 26, 2025, is available and may be purchased, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed on PACER after release. The entry sets deadlines for redaction requests (due 2025-10-28), a redacted transcript deadline (2025-11-07), and the transcript release/restriction lift date (2026-01-05).

The plaintiffs filed a status report in the case, which was docketed on October 3, 2025; the docket entry does not describe the substance of the report.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' pending Motion to Stay the case based on a lapse in appropriations; the opposition was entered on October 3, 2025. The entry is a filing and does not indicate any court ruling or hearing.

Defendants filed a motion asking the court to stay the case because of a lapse in appropriations and attached a proposed order with the filing on October 1, 2025.

An exhibit was filed in support of the defendants' response to the plaintiffs' motion for a status conference; the filing attaches “Exhibit A – Alfonso‑Royals Declaration.”

On 09/25/2025, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing (Status Conference) at docket no. 171. The docket entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any ruling or scheduling by the court.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to appoint counsel to represent the certified class and attached a proposed order in support of that request.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their pending motion to appoint counsel for the certified class; the memorandum was filed on 2025-09-25.

The plaintiffs filed an exhibit (entered on 2025-09-19) in connection with their previously filed addendum to a motion/memorandum (docket no. 174). The docket entry reflects only the submission of that exhibit and does not indicate any court action.

On September 19, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an addendum to their earlier motion for a hearing (status conference). The docket entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduling.

On September 16, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a corrected memorandum in support of their Supplemental Motion for an Order to Show Cause and for Additional Relief (docket no. 150).

The plaintiffs filed an index of exhibits in support of their motion for a hearing (status conference), attaching six exhibits: a declaration by Emily Martin, emails between plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel, a USCIS notice to a class member dated August 21, 2025, and several USCIS responses to class members and to a senator's office regarding a class member.

The petitioners filed a motion requesting a hearing (a status conference) and attached a proposed order. The docket entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate whether the court granted the request or scheduled the hearing.

The court entered an electronic order granting the motion for pro hac vice admission for Katie Weng and added her as counsel in the case. The order instructs that pro hac vice attorneys must have individual PACER accounts (not shared), must include the docket number when registering, and must enter a Notice of Appearance on the docket.

The petitioners filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice seeking admission of attorney Katie Weng, paid a $125 filing fee (receipt AMADC-11168602), and attached an exhibit; the entry does not indicate any court ruling on the motion.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority and submitted a defendants' report concerning parole grants to former CHNV parolees, attaching two exhibits labeled Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

A notice of appearance was filed by Gabriel Canaan indicating he will represent the Immigration Reform Law Institute in this case; the entry was recorded on July 29, 2025.

A U.S. Court of Appeals case number (No. 25-1715) was assigned in connection with the previously filed Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 158); the docket entry records that the appeal was filed by government counsel and other named appellants.

A notice was filed stating that attorney Joseph Darrow is withdrawing his appearance in the case, and that Elissa Fudim will remain listed on the docket. The filing was entered on July 29, 2025.

Defendants filed a response to the court's Order No. 155 and attached a document titled the “Alfonso‑Royals Declaration.” The filing was entered on July 28, 2025.

The clerk certified and transmitted an abbreviated electronic record on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in connection with the Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 158).

The defendants filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the court's Order on Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 108) and the Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 107). The filing notifies counsel to register with the First Circuit's CM/ECF system and to submit a Transcript Report/Order Form; the district clerk is directed to deliver the official record to the Court of Appeals by 2025-08-18.

The docket entry is an electronic notice that the previously scheduled status conference has been rescheduled from July 29, 2025 to July 30, 2025 at 11:00 AM and will be conducted remotely by video conference before Judge Indira Talwani in Courtroom 9 (remote only). Counsel will receive a video conference invite at their CM/ECF-registered email and public audio access may be available with prior sign-up.

On July 18, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion seeking an order to show cause and additional relief. The docket entry reflects the filing of that supplemental motion and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their supplemental motion for an order to show cause and for additional relief; the memorandum was filed and entered on July 18, 2025.

On July 18, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants' response to the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment challenging the alleged mass truncation of CHNV parole.

The plaintiffs filed a Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts as a reply to the defendants' response to the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding the alleged mass truncation of CHNV parole, attaching an exhibit consisting of a Form I-134A for a class member. The filing was entered on July 18, 2025.

The plaintiffs filed exhibits in support of their supplemental motion for an order to show cause and additional relief. The submission attaches 11 exhibits, including declarations from class members, multiple USCIS response letters (dated 5/6/2025 through 7/3/2025), and parties' conferral emails dated July 14–17, 2025.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute filed an amicus brief opposing the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; the filing was made pursuant to the court's July 15, 2025 order allowing the amicus brief. The docket entry reflects the amicus brief was filed on July 15, 2025.

An amended certificate of service was filed by the Immigration Reform Law Institute indicating service of the amicus brief docketed at ECF No. 148 on July 15, 2025.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, attaching a proposed order and the amicus brief; the docket entry was filed/modified on July 14, 2025. The entry does not indicate whether the court has ruled on the motion.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute filed a motion requesting pro hac vice admission for attorney Gabriel R. Canaan, paying a $125 filing fee (receipt AMADC-11118041) and attaching an affidavit/certificate of the attorney.

The defendants filed an amended (corrected) Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts in response to the plaintiffs' 56.1 statement concerning the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment challenging the mass truncation of CHNV parole; the filing replaces Docket No. 141.

On July 9, 2025, attorney Rohan J. Samaraweera filed a notice of appearance indicating he will represent the Immigration Reform Law Institute in this case.

The defendants filed a Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts responding to the plaintiffs' statement in opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment challenging the mass truncation of CHNV parole. The filing appears to be the defendants' factual response to that pending motion (Docket No. 128).

On July 7, 2025, the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 128) challenging the mass truncation of CHNV parole.

On July 1, 2025, the defendants filed a response to the court's prior orders at ECF Nos. 133 and 138 and attached a Declaration of Kika Scott.

The plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendants' response to the plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause (docket no. 116). The entry is a filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The plaintiffs filed an index of exhibits to accompany their reply in support of their Notice and Motion for an Order to Show Cause, attaching documents such as the USCIS Alfonso‑Royals memorandum (dated June 9, 2025), USCIS response letters (dated June 23, 2025), declarations, and email correspondence. The entry appears to be a submission of supporting exhibits and does not indicate any court decision.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a reply in support of their pending Notice and Motion for an Order to Show Cause. The submission includes a proposed reply, an index with exhibits, and a proposed order as attachments.

On June 20, 2025, the defendants filed a Response to the court's June 16, 2025 order (ECF No. 127) and attached a Declaration of Kika Scott. The docket entry reflects the submission of that response on June 20, 2025.

Defendants filed a motion asking the court for an extension until June 20, 2025 to respond to the court's June 16, 2025 order (ECF No. 127). The entry reflects the filing of that request but does not indicate any court decision on the motion.

An attorney, Inyoung Hwang, filed a Notice of Appearance indicating they will represent the plaintiffs in this case. The filing was entered on June 16, 2025.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment challenging the mass truncation of CHNV parole; the filing includes numerous exhibits (USCIS/DHS memoranda, statistics, guidance documents, and a proposed order).

The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion for partial summary judgment challenging the mass truncation of CHNV parole. The filing, entered on June 16, 2025, includes a Statement of Undisputed Facts and an index of exhibits attached in support of the motion.

The defendants filed a response to the court's Order at docket no. 121 and attached a Declaration of Kika Scott; the filing was entered on June 13, 2025.

On June 13, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. The filing responds to the defendants' pending motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

The petitioners filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice to admit attorneys Inyoung Hwang and Javier Ortega Alvarez, paid a $250 filing fee (receipt AMADC-11060413), and attached each attorney’s supporting certificate as exhibits; the entry is the filing of that motion and does not indicate any court ruling.

The defendants filed a Response to the court's June 6, 2025 order (docket no. 119), attaching a Declaration of Kika Scott. The docket entry reflects the submission of that response on June 9, 2025.

The petitioners filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause and attached a proposed order; the entry itself does not indicate any court ruling, scheduled hearing, or deadline.

The petitioners filed a memorandum in support of their previously filed Motion for an Order to Show Cause (docket no. 116). The filing supplies legal argument or explanation in support of that motion but the entry does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The petitioners filed an index of exhibits related to their Motion for an Order to Show Cause, attaching eleven exhibits (Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 11). The filing appears to be a supplemental submission to docket no. 116.

The defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss, addressing arguments for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case, asserting lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the docket notes that responses are due by 6/13/2025.

The defendants filed a motion requesting leave to exceed the court's page limits for the memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss; the filing includes a proposed order. The entry is a docketed motion and does not indicate any court ruling.

A consent motion was filed by multiple defendants requesting an extension of time to file their answer until June 30, 2025; the entry does not indicate whether the court has ruled on the request.