Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

District of ColumbiaSparkle L. SooknananDecided June 22, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03501

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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 DHS Read by a model
The Executive Order triggered an overhaul of a system maintained by DHS to verify citizenship and immigration status—the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
The Federal Defendants cross-moved for either dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim or for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 66, and denies the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment), ECF No. 77
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 66
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 66
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
The Court therefore sets aside and vacates the 2025 SAVE modified system and the related notices because they were contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and without observance of procedure required by law.
Months pending Not stated 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. 1:25-cv-03501
Filed
September 30, 2025
Ended
June 22, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
265 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for plaintiff

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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.