Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Statewide Bonding, Inc v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided May 10, 2019No. 1:18-cv-02519

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 ICE Read by a model
It believes that the Department of Homeland Security and its component, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are improperly declaring many of the bonds breached and seeking to collect the posted money from the bonding companies.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
The current case asks this Court to freeze collection on those past bond breaches while Plaintiffs administratively appeal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ 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
Defendants now move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs have not stated a claim under either the APA or Due Process Clause and that mandamus jurisdiction does not exist here.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
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. 1:18-cv-02519
Filed
October 30, 2018
Ended
May 10, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
192 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.