Current stage: Preliminary Injunction
The plaintiffs challenged USCIS's December 2, 2025 policy memorandum and the court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from applying that memorandum to the plaintiffs' I-765 and I-485 applications, directing defendants to adjudicate those applications and notify the plaintiffs of any decisions. Subsequent orders led the agency to reopen both adjustment-of-status applications and to issue employment authorization documents to the plaintiffs; the case remains active with upcoming status and case-management deadlines under the assigned magistrate judge.
Deadlines, hearings, and court-ordered dates from this docket
Consent or declination to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge is due by 12/26/2025.
Responses to the motion for preliminary injunction are due by 2026-01-20.
Defendants must file consent or declination forms indicating whether they agree to proceed before a magistrate judge by 2026-01-20.
Responses to the ex parte application and motion for expedited discovery must be filed by 2026-01-20.
Replies in support of the motion for preliminary injunction are due by 2026-01-27.
Replies in support of the ex parte application and motion for expedited discovery must be filed by 2026-01-27.
Hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction set for 10:00 AM on 2026-02-10 in San Jose, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen.
Court will hear argument from counsel and will not take witness testimony at this hearing.
By 5pm on 2026-02-11 each side must file a two-page, non-argument statement about the applicable statutory scheme, and each plaintiff must file a declaration of current educational/student status (including employer/school); one plaintiff's declaration must also state eligibility basis for March 2026 Match Day and the expiration date of current work/study authorization.
By 5:00 PM PST on 2026-02-24, defendants' counsel must provide written notice of the court's order to all defendants and file a copy of that notice on the docket.
Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction (if required) is due no later than 2026-03-10.
Responses to the administrative motion to relate are due by 2026-03-13.
Defendants must file their response to the amended complaint within 30 days after the court issues its order on the pending motion; using this order's date (2026-02-12) as the anchor, that deadline falls on 2026-03-14.
Parties must file a Joint Case Management Statement addressing defendants' compliance with the preliminary injunction and satisfying the Standing Order's required contents.
Case Management Statement is due by 2026-03-17.
Deadline set for the redacted transcript to be filed or made available is 2026-03-20.
By this date (within 30 days of the 2026-02-20 order), defendants shall adjudicate the plaintiffs' Form I-765 and Form I-485 applications and inform the plaintiffs of the decision and, if denied, the reasons for denial.
In-person Case Management Conference scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on 2026-03-24 to address compliance with the preliminary injunction.
Initial Case Management Conference to be held on 2026-03-24 at 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor.
Hearing on the petitioners' Second Motion for Discovery on 2026-03-24 at 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen.
A response to the Third Administrative Motion to Relate Case is due by 2026-03-27.
The plaintiffs must file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) by this date.
The defendants must file their jurisdictional brief/response to the SAC by this date.
Opposition/response to the Second Motion for Discovery is due by 4/6/2026.
Defendants must file a consent to or a declination of magistrate judge jurisdiction by 2026-04-08.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is due on 2026-04-10.
The plaintiffs must file their opposition to the defendants' jurisdictional brief by this date.
Reply in support of the petitioners' Second Motion for Discovery is due by 4/13/2026.
The defendants must file any reply on jurisdictional issues by this date.
Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on 2026-04-17.
Defendants' reply in support of the motion to dismiss is due on 2026-04-22.
Defendants Lam and Selby must file either an unconditional consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or a declination by 2026-05-06.
Defendants must file an unconditional consent or a declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction by 5:00 PM PDT on 2026-05-07.
The transcript restriction is scheduled to be released and the transcript may be obtained through PACER beginning 2026-05-18.
Hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss set for 2026-05-19 at 10:00 AM.
Counsel must send a list of names and emails for those appearing at the June 2 conference to the CRD no later than 2026-05-29 at 5:00 PM.
Further Case Management Conference to be held by videoconference on 2026-06-02 at 09:00 AM.
Counsel or parties who wish to be identified as making an appearance or participating must send a list of names and emails to the CRD at svkcrd@cand.uscourts.gov by 2026-06-15 at 3:00 PM PST.
Hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 56) by videoconference at 10:00 AM; the court may vacate the hearing if it can decide the motion on the papers.
Hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 2026-06-18 at 10:00 AM via Zoom webinar; webinar access available at the court's SVK webpage.
The June 18, 2026 Zoom hearing is converted to a preliminary-injunction hearing and will be held via Zoom at 10:00 AM.
Parties must file a joint status report by 7/17/2026 at 12:00 PM PST.
Parties must file a joint status report by 12:00 PM PST on 2026-07-17.
Counsel or parties who wish to be identified or participate must send a list of names and emails to the CRD at svkcrd@cand.uscourts.gov by 3:00 PM PST on 2026-07-17.
Status conference continued to 7/21/2026 at 10:00 AM.
Status conference set for 10:00 AM on 2026-07-21 to be held via Zoom webinar before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen.
Extracted from court filings. Check linked sources for official deadlines.
June 20, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a notice titled "3rd Change in Material Facts" attaching two exhibits described as motions to reopen (one for each plaintiff). The entry is a party filing and does not state any court action or set any deadlines.
June 18, 2026
The clerk issued a notice scheduling a status conference for July 21, 2026 at 10:00 AM (to be held via Zoom webinar) and set a deadline for a status report due July 17, 2026 at 12:00 PM PST. The notice also requires counsel or parties who wish to be identified for appearance to send a list of names and emails to the courtroom deputy by July 17, 2026 at 3:00 PM PST.
June 18, 2026
The court filed an "Order Following June 18, 2026 Preliminary Injunction Hearing," signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on June 18, 2026; the docket entry does not describe the order's substance or state any deadlines or required next steps.
June 18, 2026
A motion hearing was held on 2026-06-18; the court indicated it will issue an order and continued the matter for a status conference on 2026-07-21 at 10:00 AM. The parties must file a joint status report by 2026-07-17 at 12:00 PM PST.
June 16, 2026
On 2026-06-16 the defendants filed a Response to the court's Order to Show Cause; the filing was submitted by defense counsel and was entered on 2026-06-16.
June 15, 2026
On 6/15/2026 the defendants filed a notice stating that they served a court order.
June 12, 2026
Key EventThe court signed a Temporary Restraining Order, an Order to Show Cause regarding the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction, and an Order addressing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on 2026-06-12.
June 12, 2026
The clerk's notice states that the previously scheduled Zoom hearing on June 18, 2026 has been converted into a preliminary-injunction hearing.
June 9, 2026
The docket entry indicates that the defendants filed an opposition/response to the petitioners' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or temporary injunction (docket no. 81) on 2026-06-09. The entry shows the filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or next-step deadline.
June 9, 2026
On 2026-06-09 the petitioners filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order or a temporary injunction; the filing includes an appendix memorandum, a proposed order, and multiple exhibits (including a physician declaration and USCIS policy memoranda).
June 4, 2026
The court issued a text-only order notifying the parties that the case is now assigned to this judge and that the court will take up Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 56). The court scheduled a videoconference hearing for June 18, 2026 at 10:00 AM but said it may vacate the hearing if it can decide the motion on the papers.
June 4, 2026
The clerk set a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction for June 18, 2026 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen to be held via Zoom webinar, and provided webinar access and Zoom guidance links. The notice requires counsel or parties who wish to be identified as appearing to send a list of names and emails to the courtroom deputy by June 15, 2026 at 3:00 PM PST.
June 3, 2026
The court reassigned the case to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen (District Judge Noel Wise is no longer assigned), instructed counsel to use the updated judicial initials on future filings, vacated all presently scheduled hearings and trials, and stated that existing briefing schedules and other deadlines (e.g., ADR, discovery cutoff) remain unchanged though motions must be renoticed for the reassigned judge.
June 3, 2026
On 2026-06-03 the district judge signed an order referring the case to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen for all purposes.
June 2, 2026
The docket reflects a further case management conference held by videoconference on 2026-06-02 before District Judge Noel Wise, during which counsel presented argument and both parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The entry notes the Zoom recording time and counsel who appeared.
June 2, 2026
Key EventThe court held a Case Management Conference on June 2, 2026; the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against defendants Hannah Lam, Carrie M. Selby, and John Doe 1–10 in their individual capacities (see ECF No. 74). The parties confirmed consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction for all purposes, and the court will issue a referral to magistrate judge jurisdiction.
June 2, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a notice that they are voluntarily dismissing several defendants in their individual capacities, including two named individuals and multiple John Doe defendants. The entry is a party filing and does not indicate whether the court has entered an order dismissing those defendants.
May 28, 2026
On 2026-05-28 counsel filed a proposed summons. The entry does not state that a summons was issued, served, or that any related deadlines were set.
May 28, 2026
On 2026-05-28 counsel filed a proposed summons. The entry does not indicate that a summons was issued, served, or that any related deadlines were set.
May 22, 2026
A Joint Case Management Statement was filed by the defendants on 2026-05-22. The docket entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or new deadlines.
May 20, 2026
The Clerk set a further Case Management Conference for June 2, 2026 at 9:00 AM (videoconference via Zoom) and instructed counsel to provide a list of names and emails for appearances to the court's CRD no later than May 29, 2026 at 5:00 PM.
May 19, 2026
An errata entry was filed on May 19, 2026; the docket text here is minimal and does not describe any substantive court action.
May 15, 2026
On May 15, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation with a proposed order addressing multiple docket items including a request to terminate hearings and briefing matters; the entry is a stipulation between the parties and does not by itself show a court ruling.
May 10, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a Request for Waiver of Service on May 10, 2026; this docket entry reflects a routine service-related filing and not a court disposition.
May 8, 2026
The Clerk issued a notice on May 8, 2026 that the case will be randomly reassigned to a U.S. District Court judge because a party has not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction or timeliness is required; the notice states that all hearings currently scheduled before the magistrate judge are vacated and should be re-noticed before the reassigned judge.
May 8, 2026
The court issued an order on May 8, 2026 reassigning the case to District Judge Noel Wise, removing Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen, vacating all hearing and trial dates currently scheduled, and directing counsel to use the new judge's initials on future filings; the order also stated existing briefing schedules remain unchanged.
May 7, 2026
The court issued a text-only order on May 7, 2026 stating that defendants Lam and Selby had not filed an unconditional consent or declination by the May 6 deadline and ordering that the consent/declination must be filed by 5:00 p.m. PDT on May 7, 2026.
April 29, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an order on April 29, 2026 finding the consents filed by defendants Lam and Selby ambiguous and ordering them to file either an unconditional consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or a declination; the order set a deadline of May 6, 2026 for that filing and warned that failure to file an unconditional consent would result in reassignment to a district judge.
April 24, 2026
An administrative motion was filed on April 24, 2026 referencing Civil Local Rule 7-11; the docket text here is minimal and does not describe any court action.
April 24, 2026
An opposition/response to a motion was filed on April 24, 2026; the docket text here is minimal and does not describe any court decision or new deadlines.
April 17, 2026
Plaintiffs filed their opposition/response to the defendants' motion to dismiss on April 17, 2026. This is a routine briefing filing and does not reflect a court disposition.
April 10, 2026
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on April 10, 2026 and noticed a hearing for May 19, 2026 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen; the motion entry also lists response and reply deadlines (responses due April 17, 2026; replies due April 22, 2026).
April 7, 2026
On April 7, 2026, defendants Hannah Lam and Carrie M. Selby filed a document labeled 'Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge.' The docket entry does not specify in this text whether the filing is an unconditional consent or a declination.
April 2, 2026
The Clerk issued a clarification on April 2, 2026 that the earlier request for consent/declination (Dkt. 51) was directed to the new defendants added in the Second Amended Complaint.
April 1, 2026
Key EventThe court granted Defendants' April 1, 2026 administrative motion for an extension and set the briefing schedule: defendants' motion to dismiss is due April 10, 2026; plaintiffs' opposition is due April 17, 2026; and defendants' reply is due five days after plaintiffs' opposition is filed.
April 1, 2026
The Clerk issued a notice on April 1, 2026 directing defendants to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge, with the consent/declination due by April 8, 2026.
April 1, 2026
Defendants filed an administrative motion on April 1, 2026 seeking additional time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint and stated a proposed response deadline of April 6, 2026. The filing asks the court for an extension but does not show the court's response.
April 1, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a response to the Clerk's notice about consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction on April 1, 2026. The entry is a party filing and does not state any court action.
March 30, 2026
On March 30, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against all defendants, attaching a red-line version and multiple exhibits including news articles and excerpts of USCIS policy memoranda.
March 24, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an order denying the parties' motions to relate the listed cases (references 17, 38, 43) and marked the more-recent cases as not related, referring them to the judges assigned to the next-earliest filed cases; none were reassigned to the magistrate judge. The order was signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on March 24, 2026.
March 24, 2026
Key EventThe court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and set an expedited schedule for jurisdictional briefing in response, with filing deadlines through April 15, 2026. The court deferred ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery until the jurisdictional briefing is complete, will issue a separate order denying the pending motions to relate, and may set a hearing if necessary.
March 24, 2026
The docket reports that a motion hearing and the initial case management conference were held before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 2026-03-24, and the court indicated it will issue an order. Plaintiff counsel and defense counsel were present and the proceeding was recorded from 10:04–10:15 am.
March 23, 2026
The docket entry indicates that on 2026-03-23 the petitioners filed a third administrative motion asking the court to relate this case to another matter; the entry states responses are due by March 27, 2026.
March 23, 2026
The defendants filed a response to the plaintiffs’ Notice (docket no. 42), attaching Exhibit A. The entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or set new deadlines or hearings.
March 23, 2026
The petitioners filed a second motion for discovery; the filing notes a hearing on March 24, 2026 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen and sets deadlines for oppositions and replies. Responses to the motion are due April 6, 2026, and replies are due April 13, 2026.
March 20, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a “Second Notice of Change in Material Facts” on 2026-03-20, attaching three exhibits (Exhibits A–C); the entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled action.
March 17, 2026
The defendants filed a stipulation requesting an extension of their deadline to respond to the amended complaint; the entry does not state the new response date or whether the court has approved the stipulation.
March 17, 2026
On 2026-03-17 the defendants filed Exhibit A in connection with the previously-filed Joint Case Management Statement (document 39); the filing was submitted by defendants' counsel. The entry appears to be an exhibit attachment and does not indicate any court action or new deadlines.
March 17, 2026
A joint case management statement was filed by the defendants on 2026-03-17.
March 9, 2026
The petitioners filed a second administrative motion asking the court to consider whether this case should be related to another case; the entry sets a response deadline of March 13, 2026. The filing requests that the court relate the case but does not indicate any court ruling.
February 24, 2026
The defendants filed a notice regarding the court's Order on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 35) and attached Exhibit A to the notice. The entry itself does not state any court ruling beyond the prior order or create new deadlines or hearings.
February 23, 2026
The clerk issued a notice scheduling an initial case management conference for March 24, 2026 at 10:00 AM in San Jose (Courtroom 6, 4th Floor) and set a deadline for the case management statement on March 17, 2026.
February 20, 2026
Key EventThe court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, preventing defendants from applying the December 2, 2025 USCIS Policy Memorandum to the plaintiffs' I-765 and I-485 applications and directing defendants to adjudicate those applications and notify the plaintiffs of the decisions (with reasons for any denial). The order also requires defendants' counsel to give written notice to all defendants, set an in-person case management conference, and required a joint case management statement about compliance with the injunction.
February 17, 2026
The docket entry indicates a transcript of the proceedings held on 02/10/2026 before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen was filed by the court reporter, with viewing restrictions and deadlines for redaction and release noted. It specifies a deadline to request redaction, a deadline for the redacted transcript, and a date when the transcript restriction will be lifted for public PACER access.
February 12, 2026
Key EventThe court entered an order on 2026-02-12 approving the parties' stipulation to extend the defendants' deadline to respond to the amended complaint; the new deadline is set for 30 days after the court issues its order on the pending motion. The docket notes the defendants' current response deadline is Feb 13, 2026.
February 11, 2026
The defendants filed a supplemental statement (titled “Terminate Hearings”) related to docket no. 27 (Motion Hearing). The entry is a filing by defense counsel and does not indicate any court ruling or set any deadlines.
February 11, 2026
The petitioners filed a response related to the motion hearing (docket no. 27) on 2026-02-11 titled “Terminate Hearings,” attaching declarations from each petitioner.
February 11, 2026
The docket shows a transcript order filed by the petitioners on 2026-02-11 for the recorded proceedings held on 2026-02-10 before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen in San Jose; the transcriber is listed as Tara Jauregui (echoreporting@yahoo.com). The entry was modified on 2026-02-11.
February 11, 2026
The petitioners filed a statement related to the February 10 motion hearing (docket no. 27); the filing's title includes the phrase "Terminate Hearings," but the exact purpose or procedural effect is unclear from the entry text.
February 11, 2026
The defendants filed a stipulation requesting an extension of their deadline to respond to the amended complaint. The entry does not state what new deadline is proposed or whether the court has approved the stipulation.
February 10, 2026
Key EventOn 2026-02-10 the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and set short post-hearing filing requirements. By 5pm on 2026-02-11 each side must file a two-page, non-argument statement about the applicable statutory scheme and each plaintiff must file a declaration of current educational/student status (including employer/school); one plaintiff must also state the basis for eligibility to participate in March 2026 Match Day and the expiration date of their current work or study authorization, and the government may file a response or clarification to those declarations by 5pm on 2026-02-12.
February 7, 2026
On 2026-02-07 the petitioners filed a Notice of Change in Material Facts regarding their motion for a preliminary injunction (docket no. 9), attaching Exhibit A (Declaration of Ashkan Pourabhari Langroudi) and Exhibit B (USCIS Response).
February 4, 2026
Key EventThe court entered a text-only order on 2/4/2026 stating that at the February 10, 2026 hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction it will hear argument from counsel and will not take witness testimony.
February 4, 2026
The docket entry indicates that the defendants filed a Notice of Service of a corrected certified administrative record (Exhibit A attached) referencing the prior notice (dkt. 23); the filing was made on 2026-02-04 and the text was modified on 2026-02-05.
February 3, 2026
The docket entry indicates that the defendants filed a Notice of Service and Filing of the Certified Administrative Record on 2026-02-03, attaching Exhibit A (a certified administrative record). The entry includes the note "** CORRECT DOCUMENT AT DKT. 24 .**" and the text was modified on 2026-02-05.
January 30, 2026
The petitioners filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction (referencing docket no. 9) on January 30, 2026. The entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or set any new deadlines.
January 23, 2026
The defendants filed an opposition/response to the petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction on January 23, 2026, attaching a declaration; the filing record was later modified on January 26, 2026. The entry does not state any court ruling or set new deadlines or hearings.
January 21, 2026
Key EventThe court entered an Order for Expedited Production of the Administrative Record in connection with the petitioners' Motion for Expedited Discovery (docket no. 11). The order was signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 2026-01-21.
January 21, 2026
On 2026-01-21 the petitioners filed a Reply in support of their Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery (referencing docket no. 11); the filing record was later modified on 2026-01-23. The entry shows the filing but does not indicate any court ruling or set any new deadlines.
January 20, 2026
The defendants filed a Consent/Declination form regarding whether the case should proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge on 2026-01-20; the entry does not indicate whether they consented or declined.
January 20, 2026
The docket entry indicates that the plaintiff(s) filed an administrative motion to relate the case and attached a proposed order; the filing was made and modified on 2026-01-20. The entry does not indicate any court action or ruling on the motion.
January 20, 2026
Key EventThe court entered an order granting the parties' stipulation to extend the defendants' deadline to respond to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; the order was signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 2026-01-20. The new response deadline is not specified in this docket entry.
January 20, 2026
The defendants filed an opposition/response to the Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery (docket no. 11) on 2026-01-20. The entry shows the filing but does not indicate any court ruling or set new deadlines or hearings.
January 19, 2026
The docket entry indicates that the defendants filed a stipulation with a proposed order seeking to extend their deadline to respond to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; the entry does not state the new deadline or whether the court has approved the stipulation.
January 8, 2026
The docket entry indicates that the plaintiff(s) filed a returned-executed summons for all defendants; the filing includes Exhibits A–D as attachments.
January 7, 2026
On 2026-01-07 attorney Sarah Ellen Balkissoon filed a Notice of Appearance indicating she will represent defendants Pamela Bondi, Joseph B. Edlow, and Kristi Noem in the case.
January 6, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an ex parte application and motion seeking expedited discovery. The docket lists deadlines for responses by 2026-01-20 and for replies by 2026-01-27.
January 5, 2026
The clerk issued a notice asking the defendants to file consent or declination forms indicating whether the case should proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, reminding parties that withholding consent has no adverse substantive consequences and providing a link to the forms. The notice sets a filing deadline of January 20, 2026.
January 3, 2026
The petitioners filed a motion for a preliminary injunction; the court scheduled a hearing for February 10, 2026 at 10:00 AM in San Jose and set briefing deadlines (responses due January 20, 2026; replies due January 27, 2026).
January 1, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against all defendants on 2026-01-01. The filing includes Exhibits A–G listed as the December 2, 2025 USCIS Policy Memorandum, a USCIS email to a senator's office, USCIS case processing times, Form I-765 and I-485 receipt notices, USCIS online case status, expedite request responses, and USCIS tweets.
December 29, 2025
The docket entry indicates that the summons was returned executed for all defendants, and Exhibits A–D were attached to the filing. The entry appears to be a proof-of-service filing by the plaintiff(s).
December 27, 2025
The plaintiffs filed a Consent/Declination form concerning whether their case should proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge; the entry does not state whether they consented or declined. No additional details or future deadlines are included in the entry.
December 12, 2025
On 2025-12-12 the court issued summonses for defendants Pamela Bondi, Joseph B. Edlow, Kristi Noem, the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney General. The entry records issuance of the summonses but does not state whether they have been served or set any related deadlines.
December 12, 2025
The docket shows the court filed/entered an 'Immigration Mandamus Case Procedural Order' on 2025-12-12. The entry provides no details about the order's contents or any deadlines or obligations it may create.
December 11, 2025
The clerk assigned the case to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen, reminded counsel to serve the complaint, summons, and the judge's standing orders, stated the summons will be issued upon receipt and a scheduling order will be sent within two business days, and set a deadline for Consent/Declination by 2025-12-26.
December 11, 2025
The docket entry indicates that counsel filed a proposed summons on 2025-12-11; the entry does not state that a summons was issued or any next-step deadline.
December 11, 2025
On 2025-12-11 the petitioners filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a petition for a writ of mandamus against all defendants; a $405 filing fee was paid and Exhibits A–G were attached.