Current stage: Hearing Scheduled
The petitioner filed a mandamus action challenging USCIS policy directives; defendants were served in March and have since filed an answer to the amended complaint. Multiple motions remain pending — including a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion to certify a class — a hearing was scheduled and later rescheduled for early May and the district judge referred the motions to a magistrate for a report and recommendation, but no final ruling or hearing outcome is reflected on the docket.
Deadlines, hearings, and court-ordered dates from this docket
Response to the motion to seal is due by 2026-03-24.
Responses to the plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class are due on this date.
Response to the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is due by 3/25/2026.
Defendants must file responses to the pending Motions by April 9, 2026.
Replies to the non-objection response are due by 2026-04-16.
The plaintiff must file any reply to defendants' opposition to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by 04/16/2026.
Motion hearing on Docket Entries 4 and 6 set for April 24, 2026 at 10:00 AM in the Miami Division before Judge David S. Leibowitz.
All counsel must appear at the hearing on 2026-04-24 at 10:00 A.M. and be prepared to discuss potential consolidation with a related action and other matters for orderly progression of the cases.
The plaintiffs' replies to the defendants' opposition to the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction are due on 4/29/2026.
Replies to the opposition are due by 5/1/2026.
Hearing on ECF Nos. 5 and 6 and ECF No. 15 before Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez at 10:00 AM on 2026-05-01 in the Miami Division (James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building, 11th Floor).
Motion hearing re ECF Nos. 5 and 6 and ECF No. 15 reset for May 5, 2026 at 10:00 AM in Miami.
Responses to the Motion to Continue are due by 5/7/2026.
Responses to the Motion to Enforce Consolidation Order are due by 5/7/2026.
Responses to the Motion to Amend/Correct are due by 5/13/2026.
Several defendants who were served on 2026-03-18 must file a response or answer by 2026-05-18.
Extracted from court filings. Check linked sources for official deadlines.
May 22, 2026
Sever
May 19, 2026
A notice of supplemental authority was filed on 2026-05-19.
May 18, 2026
A response in opposition to a motion was filed on 2026-05-18.
May 18, 2026
Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on 2026-05-18.
May 18, 2026
Another response in opposition to a motion was filed on 2026-05-18.
May 15, 2026
A notice was filed indicating that additional parties were entered into the court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF).
May 14, 2026
Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority citing a Northern District of Georgia opinion relevant to the USCIS policy memoranda.
May 12, 2026
A party filed a notice identifying pending, refiled, related, or similar actions.
May 11, 2026
The petitioner filed an amended complaint or an amended notice of removal.
May 7, 2026
Key EventThe docket shows the court entered an order on the Motion to Amend/Correct; the entry does not state the order's specific disposition.
May 7, 2026
Key EventThe court entered an order referring the case to a magistrate judge.
May 6, 2026
Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching a district-court order denying a preliminary injunction against the challenged USCIS policy memoranda.
May 6, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a response opposing Defendants' notice of supplemental authority, arguing the cited decision is distinguishable and citing appellate decisions on jurisdiction.
May 4, 2026
A notice was filed indicating withdrawal of a motion; the docket entry provides no detail about which motion was withdrawn or any court action.
April 30, 2026
Key EventThe court entered an order denying the petitioner’s Motion to Enforce the Consolidation Order on April 30, 2026.
April 30, 2026
Plaintiffs filed another notice of supplemental authority attaching Doe v. Trump (D. Mass.) as additional authority.
April 30, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching the Meschi v. Edlow preliminary-injunction order.
April 29, 2026
The petitioner filed a notice that the Motion to Certify Class was served on the plaintiffs in the related Travieso case.
April 29, 2026
The petitioner filed a Motion to Amend/Correct and for leave to file separate documents, with responses listed as due by 2026-05-13.
April 28, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching Saghafi v. Edlow as additional authority for their filings.
April 27, 2026
The petitioner filed a notice confirming service of the Motion to Certify Class.
April 27, 2026
Plaintiffs in the related Travieso action filed a reply in support of their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
April 27, 2026
The petitioner filed a reply in support of the Motion to Enforce the Consolidation Order.
April 24, 2026
Multiple plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion to Enforce Consolidation Order; the docket notes replies are due by 2026-05-01.
April 23, 2026
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.
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.
April 23, 2026
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.
April 23, 2026
Key EventThe court granted the defendants' motion to continue and re-set the motion hearing for 2026-05-05 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez in Miami.
April 22, 2026
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.
April 21, 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.
April 17, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an order consolidating two related cases for pretrial purposes under the lead docket 1:26-cv-21565-LEIBOWITZ, administratively closing the other case. The order directs that all future filings be made only in the lead case and states the consolidation is for pretrial matters only, with parties able to move to reopen individual cases for separate trials after pretrial is complete.
April 16, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an order (signed 4/15/2026) referring the plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 5) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 6) to United States Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Magistrate Judge Rule 1(d).
April 16, 2026
Key EventThe court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed under pseudonym and to file under seal. The notice reflects Judge David S. Leibowitz signed the order on April 15, 2026 (entered on April 16, 2026).
April 13, 2026
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).
April 9, 2026
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.
April 9, 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.
March 27, 2026
Key EventThe court issued a notice directing counsel in a related action to appear at the hearing scheduled for April 24, 2026 at 10:00 A.M. and to be prepared to discuss possible consolidation of the actions and other case-management matters.
March 26, 2026
Key EventOn March 26, 2026, Judge David S. Leibowitz signed an order establishing procedures for cases with multiple defendants. The order directs defendants to file joint responses and motions (or move for leave to file separate responses if they have conflicting positions), requires leave to exceed a 20-page limit for joint filings, allows separate answers, states that the time to respond to the complaint begins only after all defendants have been served or have waived service (with all defendants using the longest applicable response period), and warns that noncompliance may result in sanctions.
March 26, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an order setting deadlines and a hearing: defendants must file responses to the Motions by April 9, 2026; the plaintiffs may file replies within seven days after each defendants' response; and a motion hearing on Docket Entries 4 and 6 is scheduled for April 24, 2026 at 10:00 AM in the Miami Division before Judge David S. Leibowitz.
March 24, 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.
March 12, 2026
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.
March 12, 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.
March 11, 2026
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.
March 11, 2026
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.
March 10, 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.
March 10, 2026
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.
March 9, 2026
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.
March 9, 2026
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.