Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

The defendants filed an emergency motion to stay the court’s June 5 Memorandum & Order vacating certain USCIS policies and the court’s June 11 partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) while they pursue an appeal, arguing likelihood of success, irreparable harm to national security and agency operations, and that the equities and public interest favor a stay; the filing notes USCIS has implemented the court’s vacatur and attaches a USCIS official declaration. Responses to the motion are due by 2026-07-06.

The court filed the transcript of the May 21, 2026 hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment and provided instructions and deadlines for transcript redactions and release. The entry names the court reporter and states how the transcript may be accessed or purchased and when redaction and release deadlines occur.

A transcript-order form was filed requesting an official (ordinary 30‑day delivery) transcript of the May 21, 2026 motions hearing on the parties’ summary judgment motions; the form shows $0.00 in estimate/charges. The ordinary category specifies delivery within 30 calendar days after receipt of the deposit (receipt date not stated).

The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking permission for attorney Reem Subei to appear pro hac vice in this case and paid the $100 admission fee (receipt ARIDC-2294172). The filing was submitted by local counsel and entered on 2026-06-12.

Defendants filed a status report stating that, consistent with the Court’s June 11, 2026 order, they submitted a declaration as Exhibit A outlining steps they are taking to comply with the Court’s June 5, 2026 order. The filing includes a certificate of service dated June 12, 2026.

On 2026-06-12, attorney Lauren S. Zurier filed a notice withdrawing her appearance for the United States in this matter; the United States remains represented by attorneys Kevin Bolan and Tyler Becker. The notice was filed and served via the court’s ECF system on June 12, 2026.

The filing records that Lauren S. Zurier, an Assistant United States Attorney, entered an appearance on behalf of all defendants and was served via the court’s ECF system on June 12, 2026. The notice does not include any motions, hearings, deadlines, or court orders.

On June 12, 2026, the defendants filed and served a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit challenging the district court’s June 5 memorandum and order (ECF No. 28), the June 11 order (ECF No. 36), and the June 11 judgment (ECF No. 37). The docket notes the appeal record is due by June 22, 2026.

The clerk transmitted an abbreviated electronic record and appellate cover sheet to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in connection with the defendants' notice of appeal, sending documents 28 (Memorandum and Order), 36 (Order), and 37 (Judgment). The transmission is certified on the cover sheet and the appeal fee status is listed as waived.

Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion asking the court to enforce its June 5, 2026 order vacating four USCIS policies, requesting expedited consideration and asking the court to order defendants to take specified compliance steps and file status reports. The docket notes responses to this motion are due by June 24, 2026.

The court acknowledged a transcript order and assigned court reporter Denise Webb to prepare the transcript, which is tentatively due to be filed on 2026-07-10. The entry explains payment arrangements, a 90-day public-access restriction, and deadlines to file a redaction request (within 21 days after the transcript is filed) and to submit a redacted transcript (31 days after filing) if a redaction is requested.

Counsel ordered an ordinary (non‑expedited) transcript of the May 21, 2026 motion hearing; the Ordinary delivery option was selected and the transcript is to be delivered within 30 calendar days after the reporter receives the deposit. The entry does not set any new court hearing or filing deadlines in the case.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) or for clarification regarding the court's vacatur order, arguing the court's vacatur was effective upon issuance and must be implemented immediately; plaintiffs say they nevertheless do not oppose entry of Rule 54(b) judgment to facilitate an appeal and report meet-and-confer communications with defendants. The docket sets a reply deadline of 2026-06-17 for the motion.

On 2026-06-09, an appearance of counsel was filed: Tyler J. Becker of the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, filed a notice of appearance representing all defendants and provided his contact information. The filing is an attorney appearance and does not itself state any court ruling or deadline.

The defendants filed a motion asking the court to either enter final judgment under Rule 54(b) for the vacatur rulings or to clarify that the court’s vacatur functions as an injunction to allow immediate appeal; the docket notes responses are due by 2026-06-23. The motion does not itself reflect any court ruling.

The court acknowledged a transcript order for the May 21, 2026 proceeding and assigned a court reporter; the transcript is tentatively due to be filed on 2026-06-08. Parties must arrange payment with the reporter, may file a Redaction Request within 21 days after the transcript is filed, and if a redaction is requested a redacted transcript must be submitted 31 days after filing; the transcript will be publicly restricted for 90 days after filing.

The docket entry records a transcript-order form selecting a 3‑Day (expedited) transcript for the motion hearing held on 2026-05-21 before Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.; the form requests delivery within three calendar days after receipt of the deposit. The entry notes the form was submitted (by Zachary Montague) and does not itself establish any court ruling or new hearing date.

Defendants filed a notice informing the court that, pursuant to an internal USCIS review, USCIS has lifted a hold on applications associated with medical physicians, citing a USCIS update dated April 30, 2026; the notice was served on all registered users. The filing is informational and does not reflect a court order.

Defendants filed their reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claims, reiterating arguments that the claims are nonreviewable, unripe, and lack standing, and asking the court to grant government relief. The filing does not include any court ruling or scheduled court event.

Defendants filed an assented motion requesting a short extension of time to file their reply and response to the plaintiffs' recent filings, seeking to move the deadline from May 8 to May 11, 2026 at 5:00 p.m., and noting plaintiffs' consent; a certificate of service was filed. The docket indicates responses to that motion were due by 2026-05-19.

Plaintiffs filed a combined reply in support of their summary-judgment motion and opposition to defendants' cross-motion, asking the court to grant their motion, deny defendants' motions, vacate the challenged policies, and enter injunctive relief; a certificate of service was filed. The docket notes further replies were due by 2026-05-08.

Counsel filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw as attorney for the plaintiffs, stating the filer concluded their work with their employer and noting that other counsel continue to represent the plaintiffs; the filing indicates defendants do not oppose. The docket shows responses to that motion were due by 2026-05-08.

Defendants filed a combined cross-motion for summary judgment, a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claims, and an opposition to plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, arguing lack of jurisdiction and requesting alternative relief such as remand or limited injunctions. The docket indicates responses to this filing were due by 2026-05-08.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to find several challenged USCIS policies unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and to vacate and enjoin those policies, supported by declarations and a memorandum; a certificate of service was filed. The docket notes a response deadline of 2026-04-17 for opposing filings.

A motion was filed to admit an out-of-state attorney (Golnaz Fakhimi) pro hac vice, with local counsel certifying review and the prospective admittee providing bar and disciplinary information; no court ruling is included. The submission is the standard pro hac vice application and certifications.

A motion was filed seeking pro hac vice admission for an out-of-state attorney (Melissa Keaney), accompanied by local counsel certification and the prospective admittee's bar-admissions and disciplinary answers; there is no court order included. The document is the routine pro hac vice motion and supporting attestations.

A motion was filed to admit an out-of-state attorney (Abbey Rutherford) pro hac vice, including local counsel sponsorship and the prospective admittee's bar and disciplinary attestations; no court action or scheduling is shown. The filing is limited to the pro hac vice motion and certifications.

Defendants filed the certified Administrative Record, produced in three exhibits corresponding to three USCIS policy documents (including PM-602-0194), and served a certificate of service; no court order or deadline is included. The filing identifies which policy memoranda are contained in each exhibit and notes correspondence to records produced in other cases.

On March 17, 2026, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Bolan filed a notice of appearance entering representation for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS Director Joseph Edlow (in his official capacity), and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem (in her official capacity). The filing states it was served via the court’s ECF system and notes the government will later ask the Court to substitute Secretary Noem’s successor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

A motion was filed seeking pro hac vice admission for an out-of-state attorney (Anisa Rahim), with local counsel certifying review and the prospective admittee attesting to bar admissions and disciplinary history; no court action is included. The filing is the motion and associated certifications only.

A motion was filed asking the court to admit an out-of-state attorney (Kalpana V. Peddibhotla) pro hac vice, including the usual certifications and a local counsel sponsorship; the filing does not include any court ruling. The form certifies the prospective admittee's bar status and disciplinary disclosures but does not show grant or denial.

The plaintiffs filed a joint motion asking the court to adopt an expedited summary-judgment briefing schedule, require defendants to produce the administrative record, relieve the parties of certain case-management and Rule 12 obligations pending resolution, and waive the Local Civ. R. 56(a) requirement to file Statements of Undisputed Facts. The docket entry indicates responses to the motion are due by 2026-03-27.

On 2026-03-09 the plaintiffs filed a motion (with a $100 fee, receipt ARIDC-2252076) asking the court to admit attorney Kristy Blumeyer-Martinez pro hac vice to represent the plaintiffs. The filing, submitted by local counsel Amy R. Romero, includes the prospective admittee's bar admissions, contact information, disciplinary/criminal disclosures, and signatures of both counsel and the prospective admittee.

On 2026-03-09 the plaintiffs, through local counsel Amy R. Romero, filed a motion (with a $100 fee) seeking pro hac vice admission of Mona Iman to represent the plaintiffs; the filing supplies the prospective admittee's federal court admission date, disciplinary/criminal-history responses, and contact information. The entry indicates no court action, hearing date, or deadline was set on the face of the filing.

The docket entry records a pro hac vice appearance on 2026-03-06. The entry does not identify who filed the appearance or indicate whether the court granted it.

The docket entry appears to indicate a pro hac vice appearance was filed or recorded on 2026-03-06. The entry does not specify who filed it or whether the court granted the appearance.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to allow attorney Catherine M.A. Carroll to appear pro hac vice; a $100 filing fee was paid (receipt ARIDC-2251454).

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to permit attorney Robin Thurston to appear pro hac vice; a $100 filing fee was paid (receipt ARIDC-2251456). The docket entry reflects the motion was filed on 2026-03-06.

All plaintiffs filed a motion seeking permission for attorney Anashua Dutta to appear pro hac vice; a $100 filing fee was paid (receipt ARIDC-2251453).

On 2026-03-05 the plaintiffs filed a corporate disclosure statement in the case.

The docket entry indicates the court issued a case opening notice (form attached) on 2026-03-05.

On 2026-03-05 the plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court and paid the $405 filing fee. The filing includes three memorandum exhibits, a civil cover sheet, and multiple summons forms addressed to various defendants.

The docket entry indicates the court issued summonses directed to the Department of Homeland Security, Joseph Edlow, Kristi Noem, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney General.