Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Freedom Watch, Inc. v. McAleenan

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided February 26, 2020No. 1:19-cv-01374

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 DHS Read by a model
As the Court previously noted, the first remedy that Plaintiff seeks is a writ of mandamus ordering DHS to respond to Plaintiff’s petition by investigating Representative Omar.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
As the Court previously noted, the first remedy that Plaintiff seeks is a writ of mandamus ordering DHS to respond to Plaintiff’s petition by investigating Representative Omar.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 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
DHS has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), respectively.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
DHS has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), respectively.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the forthcoming reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing;
Months pending 2.6 months from the application to the suit; 12.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Thus, the Court dates Freedom Watch’s submission to DHS to February 22, 2019.
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. 1:19-cv-01374
Filed
May 13, 2019
Ended
February 28, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
291 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.