Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Muthana v. Pompeo

District of ColumbiaReggie B. WaltonDecided December 17, 2019

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
State Department declared on its website that “Ms. Hoda Muthana is not a [United States] citizen and will not be admitted into the United States.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
in his attempt to have the Court order that his daughter and grandson be permitted to enter the United States and that he be permitted to provide financial support to them while they are in Syria.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court also grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
(1) entry of summary judgment for the defendants on Counts One to Eight for the Complaint pursuant to Rule 56 and (2) dismissal of Count Nine of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the Court granted the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Expedited Ruling (“Pl.’s Mot.” or the “renewed motion for expedited consideration”) and granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
The Court also grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
(1) entry of summary judgment for the defendants on Counts One to Eight for the Complaint pursuant to Rule 56 and (2) dismissal of Count Nine of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Specifically, the Court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent that it seeks (1) entry of summary judgment for the defendants on Counts One to Eight for the Complaint pursuant to Rule 56 and (2) dismissal of Count Nine of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
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

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.