Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania
City of Phila. v. Sessions
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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 Justice
Read by a model
The City also sought a declaration that it complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 , as lawfully construed, and a writ of mandamus requiring the Attorney General to fund the City its full grant award. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
The City also sought a declaration that it complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 , as lawfully construed, and a writ of mandamus requiring the Attorney General to fund the City its full grant award. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Following a four-day trial and submission of post-trial briefs, this opinion makes findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues and the Court will grant equitable relief, in favor of the City. |
| Motion decided |
Summary judgment
Read by a model
V. CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNTS I-III...318 |
| Whose motion |
Cross-motions
Read by a model
CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNTS I-III |
| 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
Following a four-day trial and submission of post-trial briefs, this opinion makes findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues and the Court will grant equitable relief, in favor of the City. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Following a four-day trial and submission of post-trial briefs, this opinion makes findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues and the Court will grant equitable relief, in favor of the City. |
| The delay claim |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
The City is entitled to prompt payment of the JAG funds. |
| The other claims |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
Following a four-day trial and submission of post-trial briefs, this opinion makes findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues and the Court will grant equitable relief, in favor of the City. |
| Months pending |
12 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
a one-year delay represents a far greater delay than might be the case in a different context. |
| 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
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
Supreme Court and Third 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 14, 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
-
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120
Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835
Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance