Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Hernandez Guillen v. Genalo
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 |
ICE
Read by a model
Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador who arrived in this country illegally in 2019 and has been detained by ICE in New York since April 2025. |
|---|---|
| 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
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
Petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining Respondents from moving Petitioner from New York or removing him from the United States while the Court considers the Petition [ECF No. 2] is DENIED. |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining Respondents from moving Petitioner from New York or removing him from the United States while the Court considers the Petition [ECF No. 2] is DENIED. |
| Disposition |
Denied in the government's favor
The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart.
Read by a model
Petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining Respondents from moving Petitioner from New York or removing him from the United States while the Court considers the Petition [ECF No. 2] is DENIED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining Respondents from moving Petitioner from New York or removing him from the United States while the Court considers the Petition [ECF No. 2] is DENIED. |
| The other claims |
Relief denied
Read by a model
Petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining Respondents from moving Petitioner from New York or removing him from the United States while the Court considers the Petition [ECF No. 2] is DENIED. |
| 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 |
| Nationality |
El Salvador
Read by a model
Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:26-cv-01524
- Filed
- February 24, 2026
- Status
- Pending as of the last docket check
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
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 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