Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida
Ward v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 |
USCIS
Read by a model
Defendants now move unopposed to remand Plaintiff's application to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) because USCIS expects to make a decision soon. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
Plaintiff sued Defendants for failing to adjudicate his naturalization application. |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
Once a plaintiff applies for a district court to determine his naturalization application, the court may “either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to [USCIS] to determine the matter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). |
| Kind of order |
A stipulated or agreed order
Read by a model
Here, given USCIS’s stated willingness to adjudicate Plaintiff's application and Plaintiff's consent, remand is appropriate both because USCIS is better equipped to consider the merits and for judicial economy. |
| Motion decided |
Remand under 1447(b)
Read by a model
Defendants’ unopposed motion to remand (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants’ unopposed motion to remand (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. |
| Disposition |
Stipulated or agreed order
An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
Here, given USCIS’s stated willingness to adjudicate Plaintiff's application and Plaintiff's consent, remand is appropriate both because USCIS is better equipped to consider the merits and for judicial economy. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Here, given USCIS’s stated willingness to adjudicate Plaintiff's application and Plaintiff's consent, remand is appropriate both because USCIS is better equipped to consider the merits and for judicial economy. |
| The delay claim |
Remanded to the agency
Read by a model
This matter is REMANDED to USCIS. |
| Months pending | Not stated A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 6:25-cv-02122
- Filed
- November 5, 2025
- Ended
- March 18, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 133 days
- How it ended
- Remanded to the agency
- From the record
- remand order 2026-03-18; idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)
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 Eleventh 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS, 131 F.4th 1302
Eleventh Circuit, March 20, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over APA unreasonable-delay claims about pending adjustment applications where the delay is part of the discretionary adjudication process, including retrogression holds.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-02; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.