E.M.P.C. v. Noem

A response in opposition to a motion was filed on 2026-08-18. The docket entry does not state which motion was opposed, who filed the response, or any substantive details about its content or effect.

On 2026-08-12 a party filed a response opposing a motion. The docket entry does not identify which motion is opposed, who filed the response, or any details about the response's contents or its procedural effect.

Defendants filed a motion asking the court to stay this case until the resolution of the Dorcas appeal, arguing the Dorcas decision vacated the same USCIS policy memoranda challenged here and that adjudications are currently proceeding. Defendants state they conferred with plaintiffs and that plaintiffs oppose the requested stay.

The court referred the plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 78) to United States Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72.

Defendants filed a third notice of supplemental authority responding to the court’s Order directing briefing (ECF No. 73). They attached an order from the Middle District of Florida (Acosta Reynoso, July 30, 2026) that denied a preliminary injunction against USCIS Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 and stated it “join[s] the district courts that have found similar challenges…moot in light of Dorcas.”

The plaintiffs filed a second (renewed) Motion to Certify Class seeking class-action treatment; the docket notes responses to that motion are due by August 12, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a notice withdrawing their Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 5) without prejudice, explaining the operative pleading was amended and the prior motion is now superseded; they ask the court to terminate ECF No. 5 and state they will file a new certification motion conforming to the Second Amended Complaint. The notice states the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on the original motion recommended denial as moot and that the withdrawal does not affect other pending motions.

The plaintiffs filed a supplemental response to the court’s order, arguing that the related preliminary-injunction motion is not moot in light of the Dorcas decision because Dorcas is not final, USCIS’s voluntary compliance does not moot the case, and Dorcas did not address the challenged regulation; they also oppose defendants’ request to stay the motion and ask the court to decide it. The filing was submitted on July 3, 2026 by plaintiffs’ counsel.

Defendants filed a supplemental brief responding to the court’s Order requiring supplemental briefing on whether a recent district-court vacatur of certain USCIS policies (Dorcas) renders a related preliminary-injunction motion moot. They argue that although Dorcas vacated the policies, the pending appeal means the PI motion is not necessarily moot now, and request the Court may in its discretion stay this case pending resolution of the Dorcas appeal.

The district judge signed an order adopting the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendations and granted the previously filed unopposed motion to sever the actions. The order indicates the consolidated matter will be severed as recommended in the R&R.

A magistrate judge issued an order requiring the parties to file supplemental briefs. The briefs must be filed on or before July 3, 2026.

A status conference was held via Zoom before Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez on June 26, 2026; the hearing lasted one hour and attorneys for the parties (Claudia Canizares, Mark Andrew Prada, Arno Javier Lemus, III, and Anthony Erickson-Pogorzelski) appeared.

The magistrate judge ordered that the in-person status conference scheduled for June 26, 2026 at 1:00 PM will instead be held by Zoom, and the court will email the Zoom link to the parties.

A magistrate judge granted defendants’ unopposed motion to stay their deadline to respond to the complaint in the related member case and ordered the response due no later than seven days after the court enters an order on the plaintiffs’ Motion to Sever (ECF No. 50).

On 2026-06-25, defendants Markwayne Mullen, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security filed an answer to the amended complaint; Anthony Erickson-Pogorzelski is listed as counsel for those defendants.

Defendants Markwayne Mullen, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security filed an unopposed motion asking the court to stay the deadline to respond to a complaint in a related member case. The docket notes responses to that motion are due by 2026-07-09.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of filing attaching Exhibit A (a declaration by a plaintiff) in connection with the court’s Order Setting Status Conference (ECF No. 64). The entry appears to be a docketing of that exhibit and does not itself set or change any scheduled court date.

A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation addressing the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class; parties may file objections to the report and recommendation by July 9, 2026.

On 2026-06-24 the plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their earlier reply (Docket No. 28), attaching Sunny-Odio v. Trump as Exhibit A.

The magistrate judge issued an order scheduling a status conference for June 26, 2026 at 1:00 PM in Miami; parties should be prepared to discuss recent developments, including a recently filed related case (Case No. 26-CV-24022-GAYLES).

The petitioner filed a Second Amended Complaint against all defendants, submitted in response to the court’s prior order granting leave; the filing includes an attached exhibit. The entry reflects the amended complaint was docketed on 2026-06-11.

A magistrate judge granted the previously filed motion to amend/correct the second amended complaint and directed the filer to separately re-file the amended pleading pursuant to Local Rule 15.1 unless the judge orders otherwise.

A notice was filed under Local Rule 3.8 informing the court of a separately filed, related district action that also challenges the same USCIS memoranda and additionally challenges Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199. The filing asks the court to consider severing the consolidated matter from the larger case and then consolidating it with the related action so the court can address PM-602-0199 in a single proceeding, and states the related plaintiffs would file a supplemental preliminary-injunction motion to avoid duplicative briefing; it also notes a prior preliminary-injunction hearing in the related case on May 5, 2026.

A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on June 5, 2026, recommending that the court grant the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to sever and return their claims to their original docket. The R&R notifies parties that objections to the recommendation are due by June 22, 2026 and that any party intending to object must file a notice of intent within five days of service.

The Travieso plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching a June 5, 2026 District of Rhode Island Memorandum and Order in Dorcas v. USCIS, which they state declared and vacated several USCIS policies (Benefits Hold Policy; Global Asylum Hold Policy; Comprehensive Re-Review Policy; Country-Specific Factors Policy). They argue their pending motions are not moot (citing the government’s right to appeal and differences between the cases), and state they are finalizing a new complaint to challenge those agency rules plus USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199.

The petitioner filed a Motion to Amend/Correct the Second Amended Complaint and attached exhibits and a proposed order; the docket states responses are due by June 12, 2026.

A magistrate judge granted a motion for an extension of time and ordered that the defendants must file their response to a complaint in a related member case on or before June 29, 2026.

The docket entry indicates the court entered an order referring a motion. The entry does not identify which motion was referred, to whom it was referred, or specify any deadlines or next steps.

The docket entry is titled "Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer" and appears to reflect that an extension to file a response, reply, or answer was filed or recorded; the entry provides no details about who sought the extension, whether the court granted it, or what new deadline (if any) was set.

The docket entry appears to indicate an extension of time to file a response/reply/answer was filed or recorded on 2026-05-27. The entry does not identify who sought the extension, state whether the court granted it, or provide any new deadline.

The docket entry indicates a filing titled “Response/Reply (Other)” was filed on 2026-05-27; the entry provides no details about the filing’s content, author, or any court action or effect.

The docket entry appears to indicate that a filing titled “Response/Reply (Other)” was filed on 2026-05-26, but the entry provides no further detail about the content, the party who filed it, or its procedural effect.

The docket contains a one-word entry, “Sever,” dated 2026-05-22. The entry is ambiguous and does not indicate who filed it or what specific procedural effect (if any) occurred.

A notice of supplemental authority was filed on 2026-05-19.

A response in opposition to a motion was filed on 2026-05-18.

Another response in opposition to a motion was filed on 2026-05-18.

Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on 2026-05-18.

A notice was filed indicating that additional parties were entered into the court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF).

Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority citing a Northern District of Georgia opinion relevant to the USCIS policy memoranda.

A party filed a notice identifying pending, refiled, related, or similar actions.

The petitioner filed an amended complaint or an amended notice of removal.

The docket shows the court entered an order on the Motion to Amend/Correct; the entry does not state the order's specific disposition.

The court entered an order referring the case to a magistrate judge.

Plaintiffs filed a response opposing Defendants' notice of supplemental authority, arguing the cited decision is distinguishable and citing appellate decisions on jurisdiction.

Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching a district-court order denying a preliminary injunction against the challenged USCIS policy memoranda.

A notice was filed indicating withdrawal of a motion; the docket entry provides no detail about which motion was withdrawn or any court action.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching the Meschi v. Edlow preliminary-injunction order.

Plaintiffs filed another notice of supplemental authority attaching Doe v. Trump (D. Mass.) as additional authority.

The petitioner filed a notice that the Motion to Certify Class was served on the plaintiffs in the related Travieso case.

The petitioner filed a Motion to Amend/Correct and for leave to file separate documents, with responses listed as due by 2026-05-13.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching Saghafi v. Edlow as additional authority for their filings.

The petitioner filed a reply in support of the Motion to Enforce the Consolidation Order.

Plaintiffs in the related Travieso action filed a reply in support of their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

The petitioner filed a notice confirming service of the Motion to Certify Class.

Multiple plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion to Enforce Consolidation Order; the docket notes replies are due by 2026-05-01.

The docket entry schedules a motion hearing on May 1, 2026 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez in the Miami Division to address ECF Nos. 5 and 6 and ECF No. 15 (member case 1:26-cv-21935). The hearing notice was signed on April 23, 2026.

The petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce the court's consolidation order; the docket entry states responses are due by 2026-05-07.

Defendants filed a motion asking the court to continue a previously set hearing; the docket entry states responses to that motion are due by 2026-05-07.

Defendants Kristi Noem, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security filed a response in opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The entry states that replies are due by April 29, 2026.

A notice was filed informing the court of numerous pending, refiled, related, or similar actions involving many individual parties. The filing also reflects that attorney Mark Andrew Prada was added as counsel for three plaintiff parties.

On 2026-04-13 the plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the pending TRO/PI motion).

Defendants filed a non-objection response to the First Motion to Seal (DE 4) and the docket records Anthony Erickson-Pogorzelski as counsel for several defendants. The entry also notes that replies are due on April 16, 2026.

On 04/09/2026, several defendants filed a response in opposition to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (DE 6). The entry states that replies to that opposition are due by 04/16/2026.

A return-of-service affidavit was filed showing the defendants were served in mid-March 2026; several defendants served on March 18, 2026 have responses/answers due May 18, 2026. The affidavit also notes service on other defendants on March 17 and March 19, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a notice indicating they submitted proposed summons(es) to the court, with two attached summons documents. The entry is a filing by the plaintiffs and does not itself state any court ruling or set any hearing or deadline.

The court issued summons directed to the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General on 2026-03-12. The entry reflects issuance of process and does not state any further court action or deadline.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (seeking certification under 23(a) and 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(2), and (b)(3)), requesting appointment of class representatives and class counsel and attaching a proposed order and affidavit; the filing includes Certificates of Service and Conference. The docket entry sets a deadline for responses to the motion on 2026-03-25.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction asking the court to immediately enjoin defendants from facilitating the plaintiffs' indefinite immigration detention or removal and to set a preliminary injunction after notice and hearing; they state counsel has not conferred because no defense counsel was identified and assert no security bond is required under Rule 65(c). Responses to the motion are due by 2026-03-25.

The petitioner filed a first motion to seal a request for injunctive relief under Local Rule 5.4 and attached a proposed order. The docket entry sets a deadline for responses on March 24, 2026.

The docket entry indicates that the court issued summonses directed to the listed defendants: Joseph Edlow; Kristi Noem; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the U.S. Attorney; and the U.S. Attorney General. The entry reflects issuance of process and does not specify any further court ruling or future deadline.

On 2026-03-09 the plaintiffs filed a petition (complaint) for a writ of mandamus against all defendants, including DHS and USCIS; the filing includes summonses and exhibits, the $405 filing fee, and the case is restricted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. The complaint challenges certain USCIS policy directives and a Presidential Proclamation as unlawfully suspending adjudication of adjustment applications and seeks declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief.

The docket entry indicates the clerk issued a notice assigning the matter to Judge David S. Leibowitz. The entry appears to be an administrative judge-assignment notice and does not by itself reflect any substantive court action.