Current stage: Discovery
The plaintiffs challenged USCIS policy memoranda and sought a preliminary injunction, but the court denied that injunction as moot and stayed several claims in light of a related case on appeal. The court allowed the plaintiffs’ unreasonable-delay claims to proceed, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, set a pretrial and discovery schedule and received an answer, then granted a joint stay of discovery deadlines through October 30, 2026.
Deadlines, hearings, and court-ordered dates from this docket
The defendants must file their response/reply to the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 2026-06-10.
The parties must notify the court of their positions on whether to stay further proceedings (explaining the basis for those positions) by June 18, 2026.
Defendants must file their response to Counts I and II within 14 days of the court's 2026-06-22 order, making the deadline 2026-07-06.
An Answer is due on 2026-08-11.
Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) must be completed by 2026-08-28.
Each side may serve up to 30 interrogatories, 30 requests for admissions, and 30 document requests within 21 days of receipt of opposing party's initial disclosures but no later than 2026-09-18.
The court expects parties to respond to any discovery requests within 30 days, with responses due by 2026-10-16 unless additional time is granted for good cause.
The court-ordered stay of discovery deadlines expires on this date; the court indicated it is not inclined to grant further extensions.
All fact discovery must be completed no later than 2026-11-06.
Dispositive motions must be filed no later than 2026-11-30; they may be filed earlier if not dependent upon fact discovery.
Opposition to any summary judgment motion is due by 2026-12-21.
Extracted from court filings. Check linked sources for official deadlines.
August 31, 2026
The court granted the parties' joint motion to stay discovery deadlines, finding the parties have resolved claims for all but two plaintiffs and extending the stay until October 30, 2026; the judge indicated he is not inclined to grant further extensions.
August 28, 2026
A joint motion to stay discovery deadlines was filed on 2026-08-28; the docket entry does not state whether the court has acted on the motion. The filing is recorded as submitted by counsel for the defendants.
August 19, 2026
Attorney Rayford A. Farquhar filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the defendants. The entry reflects counsel’s formal representation and does not indicate any court ruling or a scheduled court event.
August 19, 2026
Defense attorney Michael Fitzgerald filed a notice of withdrawal of his appearance in the case (docketed August 19, 2026). The entry indicates counsel is withdrawing but does not state any court action or remaining counsel status.
August 11, 2026
Defendants Joseph Edlow and Marwayne Mullin, through counsel Michael Fitzgerald, filed an Answer to the Complaint on August 11, 2026.
July 22, 2026
The judge entered an electronic order setting a pretrial schedule and multiple deadlines, including an Answer due August 11, 2026; initial disclosures due August 28, 2026; discovery service and response deadlines; fact discovery completion by November 6, 2026; dispositive motions due November 30, 2026; and opposition to any summary judgment due December 21, 2026.
July 21, 2026
Key EventThe court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss insofar as it sought dismissal of the unreasonable-delay claims for plaintiffs whose petitions remain pending, while dismissing as moot the unreasonable-delay claims of plaintiffs whose petitions USCIS has already adjudicated and dismissing the portion of one plaintiff's claims premised on petitions already decided. The court concluded it has jurisdiction to review unreasonable-delay claims despite statutory limits on reviewing USCIS's substantive decisions and found the remaining plaintiffs plausibly alleged delays and concrete harms (for example, lost job offers, lost educational/fellowship opportunities, and risk of deportation due to expired TPS) sufficient to state claims at this early stage.
July 20, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim (docket no. 15). The entry is a party filing opposing the defendants' motion.
July 6, 2026
The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the filing was submitted by counsel Michael Fitzgerald and docketed on 2026-07-06.
July 6, 2026
The defendants filed a memorandum in support of their pending motion to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the filing was submitted by counsel Michael Fitzgerald and docketed on July 6, 2026.
June 22, 2026
Key EventThe court ordered a stay of further adjudication of Counts III–VI in light of the Dorcas decision and appeal, but said the plaintiffs' claims of unreasonable agency delay remain live. The court directed the defendants to respond to Counts I and II within 14 days of the order and stated that plaintiffs will have 14 days to oppose any motion to dismiss; the court will evaluate delay claims using the TRAC factors.
June 18, 2026
The defendants filed a joint status report in the case, docketed on June 18, 2026.
June 11, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an electronic order denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as moot without prejudice because a recent decision in Dorcas Int'l Inst. effectively provided the relief sought. The judge said the court is inclined to stay further proceedings pending exhaustion of appeals in Dorcas Int'l and ordered the parties to notify the court of their positions on a stay by 2026-06-18.
June 10, 2026
The defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 5); the filing was submitted by counsel Michael Fitzgerald on 2026-06-10.
June 4, 2026
On June 4, 2026, attorney Michael Fitzgerald filed a notice of appearance indicating he represents two individuals named as defendants in the case. The entry is a counsel appearance and does not reflect a court ruling or other substantive action.
June 4, 2026
Defense counsel Michael Fitzgerald filed an assented-to motion requesting an extension until June 10, 2026 to file a response/reply to the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 5). The entry does not indicate whether the court has granted or entered that extension.
June 4, 2026
Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an electronic order granting the defendants' motion for an extension of time; the defendants' response is due on June 10, 2026.
May 22, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to set aside certain USCIS policies that they say bar adjudication of their pending immigration petitions and to order USCIS to adjudicate those petitions without considering plaintiffs’ nationality; the filing includes a memorandum, exhibits, plaintiff declarations, and a proposed order. Counsel states they conferred with government counsel on May 21, 2026 and that the government has not yet entered an appearance, and the filing includes a certificate of service.
May 22, 2026
The court assigned the case to Judge Richard G. Stearns and indicated that if the trial judge refers any matters, those will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal.
May 22, 2026
Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal entered an electronic order that reassigned the case; the entry provides no details about the reassignment or the new assignment destination.
May 4, 2026
The clerk issued summonses for the defendants and instructed counsel who received the notice electronically to download, complete one summons for each defendant, and serve them in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and Local Rule 4.1; summonses will be mailed to plaintiffs not receiving electronic notice for completion and service.
May 4, 2026
The clerk assigned Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal to the case and instructed the parties to promptly submit a form indicating whether they consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. Until the parties file consent or the case is reassigned, the magistrate judge will handle all pretrial non-dispositive matters and issue reports and recommendations on dispositive matters.
May 2, 2026
Attorney Mahsa Khanbabai filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case. The entry reflects counsel’s formal representation but does not indicate any court ruling or hearing.
May 1, 2026
Seventeen plaintiffs filed a civil complaint on May 1, 2026 in federal court against the Director of USCIS and the Secretary of DHS challenging USCIS policies (Policy Alert PA-2025-26 and Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194). They allege the policies impose nationality-based “negative factors” and categorical holds on certain domestic adjudications, assert mandamus, APA, statutory and constitutional claims, and seek declaratory relief, vacatur, injunctive relief, an order directing immediate adjudication of their pending applications, and attorneys’ fees.