Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Alabama

State v. United States

Northern District of AlabamaOttDecided July 29, 2016

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 Department of State Read by a model
Finally, on December 30, 2015, Governor Bentley wrote to the Director of Refugee Admissions for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration requesting that the U.S. Department of State “provide a tailored report for Alabama regarding refugee resettlement.”
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs also ask the court for an order compelling Defendants to comply with their statutory consultation obligations under the Refugee Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 7) is due to be GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ claims are due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 7) is due to be GRANTED
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is now before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for -failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 7) is due to be GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ claims are due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 7) is due to be GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ claims are due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 7) is due to be GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ claims are due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Count I is due to be dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar rejected Read by a model
this court declines to hold that Plaintiffs are categorically barred from seeking mandamus relief on the ground that an alternative remedy is available under the APA.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.