Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia
AKER v. TRUMP
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 State
Read by a model
Plaintiffs are 149 candidates for Diversity Visas and their derivative beneficiaries, who challenge the implementation of Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052, which the Department of State allegedly has interpreted to bar the processing and issuing of Diversity Visas. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-260 (immigrant visa)
Read by a model
eligible applicants for the 2020 Diversity Visa program |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
injunctive relief requiring officials to continue processing Diversity Visas |
| Kind of order |
A transfer order
Read by a model
ORDERED that this case will be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment to Judge Mehta. |
| Motion decided |
Transfer
Read by a model
Before the Court are defendants’ motions to reassign and for transfer of this case. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Before the Court are defendants’ motions to reassign and for transfer of this case. |
| Disposition |
Transferred to another court
An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
ORDERED that this case will be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment to Judge Mehta. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
ORDERED that this case will be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment to Judge Mehta. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants’ motions to reassign and for transfer of this case are GRANTED |
| The other claims |
Not decided here
Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants’ motions to reassign and for transfer of this case are GRANTED |
| 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 |
| 212(f) proclamation |
Proclamation 10014
Read by a model
Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052, which the Department of State allegedly has interpreted to bar the processing and issuing of Diversity Visas. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:20-cv-01926
- Filed
- July 16, 2020
- Ended
- August 7, 2020
- Suit's filing to its end
- 22 days
- How it ended
- Ended, outcome not recorded
- From the record
- idb disp 18 (statistical closing)
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.
-
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667
Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899
Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753
Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
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
-
Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, 197 F.3d 1153
D.C. Circuit, December 3, 1999. Consular visa decisions are not subject to judicial review absent an express statutory grant, and the APA does not displace that doctrine.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Baan Rao Thai Restaurant v. Pompeo, 985 F.3d 1020
D.C. Circuit, January 22, 2021. Consular nonreviewability bars a federal court from second-guessing a consular officer's decision to issue or withhold a visa, and dismissal on that ground is a merits ruling rather than a jurisdictional one.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Pietersen v. Department of State, 138 F.4th 552
D.C. Circuit, May 30, 2025. Consular nonreviewability does not bar a forward-looking APA challenge to generally applicable State Department guidance, as distinct from review of an individual visa refusal.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 24 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.
-
Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70
D.C. Circuit, October 24, 1984. Whether agency delay is unreasonable turns on six factors: a rule of reason, any statutory timetable, the human welfare interests at stake, the effect of expediting on competing priorities, the interests prejudiced by delay, and no need to find impropriety.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094
D.C. Circuit, August 8, 2003. A claim that an agency has unreasonably delayed a matter arises under the APA and § 1331, and the TRAC factors decide whether the delay is unreasonable.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
In re Core Communications, Inc., 531 F.3d 849
D.C. Circuit, July 8, 2008. Mandamus to compel unreasonably delayed agency action is an extraordinary remedy guided by the TRAC factors, granted here after years of unexplained delay.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance