Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California
Medani v. Trump
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 |
USCIS
Read by a model
The Court will likewise order USCIS to resume ordinary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ pending adjustment of status applications without applying the USCIS Pause. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
This memorandum immediately and indefinitely paused final adjudication of all pending I-485 applications under the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
All subclass members would receive relief if the Court, for example, grants their request to vacate the policies. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore GRANTED IN PART. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore GRANTED IN PART. |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and motion for a preliminary injunction. |
| Disposition |
Granted in part
The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part.
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore GRANTED IN PART. |
| Prevailing party |
Each side in part
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore GRANTED IN PART. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
While Plaintiffs argue they are likely to succeed on several claims, the Court need only examine one: arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under 5 U.S.C § 706(2)(A). |
| The other claims |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
The Court temporarily VACATES the Three Policies pending further litigation. |
| 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. 5:26-cv-06332
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 83), deciding the motion (ECF 54) and the motion (ECF 55)
- Filed
- June 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. Other suits in this court.
The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion numbers are read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.
Supreme Court and Ninth 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
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 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.