Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Liberty Fund, Inc. v. Chao

District of ColumbiaBatesDecided September 30, 2005

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 Labor Read by a model
The Department of Labor currently estimates that RIR applications with a priority date between April 1, 2001 and April 1, 2002 will be processed within 12 months, and those with a priority date between April 1, 2002 and April 1, 2003 will be processed within 18 months.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Petitioners presently seek writs of mandamus to compel respondents to take prompt action on their applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, the Court grants respondents' motion for summary judgment and denies petitioners' cross-motion.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
As a threshold matter, the Court will treat respondents' motion as one for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, the Court grants respondents' motion for summary judgment and denies petitioners' cross-motion.
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 explained below, the Court grants respondents' motion for summary judgment and denies petitioners' cross-motion.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, the Court grants respondents' motion for summary judgment and denies petitioners' cross-motion.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, the Court grants respondents' motion for summary judgment and denies petitioners' cross-motion.
Months pending 53 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 30, 2001, Bowie Town Medical Practice filed an application on behalf of alien Ezra Harrison for employment as a licensed practical nurse.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Under the "rule of reason," the agency's provision of a projected timeline for balancing competing priorities
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Despite petitioners' protestations, there is no genuine issue of material fact over respondent's adherence to a principle of "first-in, first out" processing of applications.
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 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.