Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

American Academy of Religion v. Chertoff

Southern District of New YorkCrottyDecided June 23, 2006

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
In sharp contrast to the dilatory pace at which DHS has considered Ramadan's B-visa application for the last two years, DHS immediately wrote to Notre Dame on December 21, 2004:
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Ramadan applied for a B visa, a nonimmigrant visa that would permit Ramadan to enter the United States to participate in various conferences.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
compelling the Government to render a final decision on Ramadan's pending visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Balancing these competing interests, the Court finds that the ability to engage Ramadan in debate by way of videoconferencing is sufficient to satisfy Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights prior to a final adjudication on the merits.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiffs now move pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a preliminary injunction so that Ramadan may enter the United States to attend their annual conferences.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs now move pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a preliminary injunction so that Ramadan may enter the United States to attend their annual conferences.
Disposition Not recorded Read by a model
Prevailing party Not recorded Read by a model
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Balancing these competing interests, the Court finds that the ability to engage Ramadan in debate by way of videoconferencing is sufficient to satisfy Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights prior to a final adjudication on the merits.
Months pending 4.3 months from the application to the suit; 9.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On September 16, 2005, at the urgings of various organizations within the United States, Ramadan applied for a B visa, a nonimmigrant visa that would permit Ramadan to enter the United States to participate in various conferences.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
The doctrine of consular nonreviewability applies to review of "a consular official's decision to issue or withhold a visa," not to the decisions of non-consular officials and certainly not to DHS.
Nationality Switzerland Read by a model
As a Swiss citizen, Ramadan did not need to apply for a temporary nonimmigrant visa to enter the United States to attend these lectures and conferences.

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 Second 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.