Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

STORIE v. TRUMP

District of ColumbiaAmir H. AliDecided August 25, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00567

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 State Read by a model
In January 2026, the State Department announced it was pausing issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from 75 countries.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
The Department also issued internal guidance to consular officers to implement the pause by refusing immigrant visas to people from the 75 countries after their interview, unless there is another basis for finding them ineligible.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin the Secretary from applying the visa pause to them and to order the Secretary to properly adjudicate their visa applications within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 7.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For these reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 7.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
For these reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 7.
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
For these reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 7.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For these reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 7.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
The court need not reach the plaintiffs’ alternative arguments for preliminary relief that the pause required notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, is ultra vires, unlawfully withholds or unreasonably delays agency action in violation of the APA and the Mandamus Act
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
The court finds the plaintiffs have satisfied their burden here and orders the Secretary to lift the pause on issuance of visas as applied to the plaintiffs, including issuing visas to any plaintiff that would have received one absent the pause.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
In any event, as other courts have recognized, consular nonreviewability does not apply when, as here, plaintiffs “pursue forward-looking challenges to the lawfulness of regulations or policies governing consular decisions.”
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
A U.S. citizen plaintiff in Michigan who is permanently blind attests to living without the support of their wife, another plaintiff, because she is subject to the pause.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00567
Filed
February 19, 2026
Ended
October 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
236 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-10-13

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.