Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Outdoor Amusement Bus. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

District of MarylandHollanderDecided September 12, 2018

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 DHS Read by a model
This case concerns a challenge to the validity of certain rules and regulations issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor, pertaining to the H-2B visa program (the "Program").
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
For the reasons that follow, I shall grant Defendants' Motion and deny Plaintiffs' Motion.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiffs' motion (ECF 91) is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 92-1) (collectively, "Plaintiffs' Motion"), and exhibits. 4 Defendants filed a combined opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion, along with their own motion for summary judgment (ECF 102)
Disposition Granted in the government'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 reasons that follow, I shall grant Defendants' Motion and deny Plaintiffs' Motion.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, I shall grant Defendants' Motion and deny Plaintiffs' Motion.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, I shall grant Defendants' Motion and deny Plaintiffs' Motion.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, I shall grant Defendants' Motion and deny Plaintiffs' Motion.
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

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

Supreme Court and Fourth 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.