Filed Date: Aug. 2, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
The case challenges a new Interim Final Rule (IFR) that mandates noncitizens who are 14 years or older and have been in the U.S. for at least 30 days to register with the federal government. This registration requires submitting fingerprints and other biometric data, and carrying proof of registration at all times. The IFR, issued on March 12, 2025, and effective on April 11, 2025, also requires parents or legal guardians to register any unregistered children under 14.
Plaintiff John Doe filed this lawsuit on August 2, 2025 against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and their respective agency heads in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiff claimed violations of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge George Carol Hanks Jr. presides over the case.
Plaintiff alleged that the new registration requirement violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He argued that the IFR compelled him to disclose information that could be used against him in a criminal prosecution. In particular, he emphasized that the new Form G-325R included questions such as “Have you EVER committed a crime of any kind?” and listed “EWI – Entry Without Inspection” as a pre-printed option for “Immigration status at last arrival.” Plaintiffs asserted that the form targeted “a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities” and therefore fell outside the protection of the required records doctrine.
The plaintiff also alleged that the IFR violated the Administrative Procedure Act, contending that it was a legislative rule issued without the required public notice and comment period. The plaintiff maintained that the IFR was not merely procedural, as it altered substantive rights and interests, imposed new obligations and criminal liability, and sought personal information not required by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment declaring the IFR unconstitutional and unlawful. He also sought a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the IFR against him, as well as an order vacating the IFR.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Victoria Tan (8/6/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71000552/parties/doe-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Hanks, George Carol (Texas)
Gonzalez, Raed (Texas)
Rodriguez, Jimmy Anthony (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71000552/doe-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated Oct. 14, 2025, 12:46 p.m.
State / Territory: Texas
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 2, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A noncitizen residing in Houston, Texas
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Justice (- United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: