Case: Doe v. U.S Department of Homeland Security

4:25-cv-03585 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Filed Date: Aug. 2, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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…

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.

The initial pretrial and scheduling conference was set for October 28, 2025. On October 10, 2025, the court entered an order granting defendant’s unopposed motion to stay the case due to the government shutdown.

This case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Victoria Tan (8/6/2025)

Maddy Ligon (10/26/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71000552/parties/doe-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/


Judge(s)

Hanks, George Carol (Texas)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Gonzalez, Raed (Texas)

Attorney for Defendant

Rodriguez, Jimmy Anthony (Texas)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

4:25-cv-03585

Plaintiff's Complaint

Aug. 2, 2025

Aug. 2, 2025

Complaint

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71000552/doe-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/

Last updated Jan. 17, 2026, 1:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ATXSDC-33869387) filed by John Doe. (Gonzalez, Raed) (Entered: 08/02/2025)

Aug. 2, 2025

Aug. 2, 2025

Clearinghouse
2

MOTION for Leave to File to Litigate This Case Pseudonymously and Brief in Support Thereof by John Doe, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/25/2025. (Gonzalez, Raed) (Entered: 08/02/2025)

Aug. 2, 2025

Aug. 2, 2025

3

CLERKS NOTICE Regarding Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. Parties notified, filed. (hlc4) (Entered: 08/04/2025)

Aug. 4, 2025

Aug. 4, 2025

4

ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 10/28/2025 at 10:15 AM by video before Magistrate Judge Richard W Bennett. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard W Bennett) Parties notified. (hlc4) (Entered: 08/04/2025)

Aug. 4, 2025

Aug. 4, 2025

Referral Judge Selected

Aug. 4, 2025

Aug. 4, 2025

Referral Judge Selected: Magistrate Judge Richard W. Bennett randomly selected to receive referrals. The selected Magistrate Judge is not assigned to this case until a District Judge refers the case or a motion or the parties consent to jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Once a referral has been made, the name of the referral judge will appear at the top of the docket sheet. (hlc4)

Aug. 4, 2025

Aug. 4, 2025

5

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by John Doe, filed. (Gonzalez, Raed) (Entered: 08/06/2025)

Aug. 6, 2025

Aug. 6, 2025

6

First AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by John Doe, D.H.M., J.M.B., Y.R., I.C., A.C.H., A.G., A.P.A., M.M.M., E.B.M., G.Y.V., F.G., E.T.L., J.G.M., I.A.R.G., E.M.M., M.N.C., S.M., I.B., P.L.H.. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by John Doe. (Gonzalez, Raed) (Entered: 08/23/2025)

Aug. 23, 2025

Aug. 23, 2025

7

First AMENDED 2 MOTION, MOTION for Leave to File to Litigate This Case Pseudonymously and Brief in Support Thereof( Motion Docket Date 9/15/2025.) by A.C.H., A.G., A.P.A., D.H.M., John Doe, E.B.M., E.M.M., E.T.L., F.G., G.Y.V., I.A.R.G., I.B., I.C., J.G.M., J.M.B., M.M.M., M.N.C., P.L.H., S.M., Y.R., filed. (Gonzalez, Raed) (Entered: 08/23/2025)

Aug. 23, 2025

Aug. 23, 2025

8

Request for Issuance of Summons as to All Defendants, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons) (Gonzalez, Raed) (Entered: 09/03/2025)

Sept. 3, 2025

Sept. 3, 2025

9

Summons Issued as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney. Issued summons returned to plaintiff by NEF, filed. (dmm4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/4/2025: # 1 Summons) (dmm4). (Entered: 09/04/2025)

Sept. 4, 2025

Sept. 4, 2025

10

RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Todd M. Lyons served on 9/19/2025, answer due 11/18/2025; Kristi Noem served on 9/19/2025, answer due 11/18/2025; Kika Scott served on 9/19/2025, answer due 11/18/2025; U.S Department of Homeland Security served on 9/19/2025, answer due 11/18/2025; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services served on 9/19/2025, answer due 11/18/2025; U.S. Customs and Border Protection served on 9/19/2025, answer due 11/18/2025; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served on 9/19/2025, answer due 11/18/2025, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proof Summons Executed, # 2 Proof Summons Executed, # 3 Proof Summons Executed, # 4 Proof Summons Executed, # 5 Proof Summons Executed, # 6 Proof Summons Executed, # 7 Proof Summons Executed) (Gonzalez, Raed) (Entered: 09/25/2025)

Sept. 25, 2025

Sept. 25, 2025

11

RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Pamela Bondi served on 9/22/2025, answer due 11/21/2025; Pete R. Flores served on 9/22/2025, answer due 11/21/2025; U.S. Department of Justice served on 9/22/2025, answer due 11/21/2025, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proof Summons Executed, # 2 Proof Summons Executed, # 3 Proof Summons Executed) (Gonzalez, Raed) (Entered: 09/25/2025)

Sept. 25, 2025

Sept. 25, 2025

12

RETURN of Service Executed as to Nicholas J. Ganjei, U.S. Attorney on 09/17/2025 re: Amended Complaint; Amended Motion to Litigate under a Pseudonym; Summons; Initial Conference Order; and Judges Procedures, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proof Summons Executed) (Gonzalez, Raed) (Entered: 09/25/2025)

Sept. 25, 2025

Sept. 25, 2025

13

Unopposed MOTION to Stay In Light of Lapse in Appropriations by Pamela Bondi, Pete R. Flores, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Kika Scott, U.S Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/30/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rodriguez, Jimmy) (Entered: 10/09/2025)

Oct. 9, 2025

Oct. 9, 2025

14

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Stay Case in Light of Lapse of Appropriations. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified. (knp4) (Entered: 10/10/2025)

Oct. 10, 2025

Oct. 10, 2025

RECAP
15

Notice of Cancellation (FORM, noticing)

Oct. 22, 2025

Oct. 22, 2025

16

Other Notice

Nov. 13, 2025

Nov. 13, 2025

17

Order on Amended Motion AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File

Nov. 19, 2025

Nov. 19, 2025

18

Notice of Attorney Substitution

Nov. 21, 2025

Nov. 21, 2025

19

Notice of Appearance

Dec. 19, 2025

Dec. 19, 2025

20

Advisory

Dec. 19, 2025

Dec. 19, 2025

Case Details

State / Territory:

Texas

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

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):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

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

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Self-incrimination

Other Dockets:

Southern District of Texas 4:25-cv-03585

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights