Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Lawfare Institute v. United States Department of State

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided August 31, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00798

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of State Read by a model
It alleges here that the Department of State has “unlawfully refus[ed] to post” international agreements in compliance with the Case Act.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Specifically, it asks this Court to order Defendant to not only post “all overdue” agreements, but also “to timely post all covered agreement text and accompanying legal authority information on a forward-going basis.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
State now moves to dismiss, deploying both jurisdictional and merits arguments.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
State now moves to dismiss, deploying both jurisdictional and merits arguments.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Considering the TRAC factors in total, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that State’s delay in posting the international agreements is unreasonable.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Considering the TRAC factors in total, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that State’s delay in posting the international agreements is unreasonable.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Considering the TRAC factors in total, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that State’s delay in posting the international agreements is unreasonable.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
The Court ultimately concludes that Plaintiff plausibly alleges discrete agency action to support the first category but not the second.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Here, there is no dispute that the legislature provided a timeline within which the State Department must act — 120 days, or 4 months — and that State has overshot that
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
As established above, the APA provides an avenue for the Court to review Lawfare’s claims, so the Court must dismiss its request for mandamus.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00798
Filed
March 6, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.