Case: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. United States Department of Homeland Security

COMPLAINT against CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ADCDC-12025448) filed by CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons to Dept of Homeland Security, # 3 Summons to Dept of State, # 4 Summons to Noem, # 5 Summons to Rubio, # 6 Summons to USAO, # 7 Summons to AG)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/16/2025)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

2 Summons to Dept of Homeland Security

View on PACER

3 Summons to Dept of State

View on PACER

4 Summons to Noem

View on PACER

5 Summons to Rubio

View on PACER

6 Summons to USAO

View on PACER

7 Summons to AG

View on PACER

NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah Patricia Hogarth on behalf of CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Hogarth, Sarah) (Entered: 10/16/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Grace Wallack on behalf of CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Wallack, Grace) (Entered: 10/16/2025)

LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/16/2025)

SUMMONS (6) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zmtm) (Entered: 10/16/2025)

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Case Assigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell. (zmtm)

STANDING ORDER. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 17, 2025. (lcbah4) (Entered: 10/17/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Daryl Langdon Joseffer on behalf of CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Joseffer, Daryl) (Entered: 10/23/2025)

AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Granich Unikowsky on behalf of ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES (Unikowsky, Adam) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Henthorne on behalf of ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES (Henthorne, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Ishan Kharshedji Bhabha on behalf of ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES (Bhabha, Ishan) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Lindsay C. Harrison on behalf of ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES (Harrison, Lindsay) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Zachary Charles Schauf on behalf of ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES (Schauf, Zachary) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 10/17/2025. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 12/16/2025. (Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. MARCO A. RUBIO served on 10/23/2025 (Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY served on 10/22/2025 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certified Mail Receipt, # 2 Exhibit USPS Tracking and Proof of Delivery)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. KRISTI NOEM served on 10/22/2025 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certified Mail Receipt, # 2 Exhibit USPS Tracking and Proof of Delivery)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction or, in the alternative, MOTION for Summary Judgment by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Exhibit Index of Exhibits, # 4 Declaration Shen, # 5 Declaration Daniels, # 6 Declaration Poser, # 7 Declaration Snyder, # 8 Declaration CMU, # 9 Declaration UIUC, # 10 Declaration Hopkins, # 11 Declaration Michigan, # 12 Declaration Minnesota, # 13 Declaration Pitt, # 14 Declaration Utah, # 15 Declaration WashU, # 16 Declaration Wisconsin, # 17 Declaration Gonzales, # 18 Declaration Hughes, # 19 Exhibit 1 - Proclamation, # 20 Exhibit 2 - USCIS Memo, # 21 Exhibit 3 - USCBP Memo, # 22 Exhibit 4 - USDOS FAQ, # 23 Exhibit 5 - USCIS H-1B Website, # 24 Exhibit 6 - USCIS Fee Schedule, # 25 Exhibit 7 - FWD.us Article, # 26 Exhibit 8 - Chamber - Labor Shortag, # 27 Exhibit 9 - AAMC Article, # 28 Exhibit 10 - Kahn Article, # 29 Exhibit 11 - AIC Article, # 30 Exhibit 12 - Peri Article, # 31 Exhibit 13 - Mahajan Article, # 32 Exhibit 14 - Jiang Article, # 33 Exhibit 15 - Morales Article, # 34 Exhibit 16 - Gunadi Article, # 35 Exhibit 17 - Chamber Litigation Center, # 36 Exhibit 18 - Chamber - Immigration, # 37 Exhibit 19 - Chamber Comment 1, # 38 Exhibit 20 - Chamber Comment 2, # 39 Exhibit 21 - Almasalkhi Article, # 40 Exhibit 22 - NASEM Excerpt, # 41 Exhibit 23 - Nowrasteh Article, # 42 Exhibit 24 - Zakrewski article, # 43 Exhibit 25 - Chamber - America Works Initiative, # 44 Exhibit 26 - USCIS Registrations, # 45 Exhibit 27 - Dimmock Article, # 46 Exhibit 28 - Santamaria CRS Report, # 47 Text of Proposed Order)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

1

View on RECAP

2

View on RECAP

LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES (Harrison, Lindsay) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 10/23/2025 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certified Mail Receipt, # 2 Exhibit USPS Tracking and Proof of Delivery)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Alexandra McTague on behalf of All Defendants (McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/27/2025)

MOTION to Stay re 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction or, in the alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/27/2025)

1 Proposed Order

View on RECAP

Memorandum in opposition to re 22 MOTION to Stay re 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction or, in the alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/28/2025)

Cross MOTION for Briefing Schedule by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/28/2025)

REPLY to opposition to motion re 22 Motion to Stay, filed by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

Order on Motion for Briefing Schedule AND Order on Motion to Stay

Memorandum in opposition to re 24 Cross MOTION for Briefing Schedule filed by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

REPLY to opposition to motion re 24 Motion for Briefing Schedule filed by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless), upon consideration of defendants' 22 Motion to Stay ("Defs.' Stay Mot."), plaintiffs' 23 Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Stay ("Pls.' Opp'n to Stay") and 24 Cross Motion for Briefing Schedule ("Pls.' Cross Mot. for Briefing Schedule"), defendants' 25 Reply in Support of Motion for Stay ("Defs.' Stay Reply") and 26 Memorandum in Opposition to Cross Motion for Briefing Schedule, and plaintiffs' 27 Reply in Support of Cross Motion to Set Briefing Schedule, DENYING defendants' 22 Motion to Stay and GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART plaintiffs' 23 Cross-Motion for Briefing Schedule, both of which motions became ripe today, for the following reasons. Defendants raise three principal reasons for why a stay of any briefing schedule is required, but none is persuasive. First, defendants argue that attorneys at the Department of Justice "are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including 'emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.'" Defs.' Stay Mot. ¶ 6 (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 1342). To the contrary, the Department of Justice's own Contingency Plan obliges employees to work "[i]f a court denies [a stay] request and orders a case to continue" because such order "would constitute express legal authorization for the activity to continue." FY 2026 Contingency Plan at 3 (Sept. 29, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/jmd/media/1377216/dl. Moreover, defendants contend that "the stay proceedings ordered by Chief Judge Boasberg[] applies to this case and is still in effect." Defs.' Stay Mot. ¶ 5 (citing D.D.C. Standing Order, No. 25-55 (Oct. 1, 2025) (Boasberg, C.J.)). Such reliance is misplaced. D.D.C. Standing Order, No. 25-55, imposes, by default, a stay of deadlines imposed upon the United States in a summary judgment action, and permits such deadlines to apply in individual cases by "further order of the Court," D.D.C. Standing Order No. 25-55, in the discretion of the presiding Judge.Second, defendants contend that federal government attorneys will have difficulty communicating with other federal government employees of defendants, many of whom may be furloughed. Consequently, "because of the lapse in appropriations, the [defendants'] attorney has not been able to work with the appropriate agency counsel to determine whether and to what extent there may be an administrative record necessary for the Court to review and resolve this case." Defs.' Stay Reply ¶ 4. While appreciating that the federal government attorneys are furloughed and face challenges in responding to the pending substantive motion in this case given the lapse in federal appropriations and the furloughs of employees of the executive branch and its agencies, "good cause" for denial of stay may be found for reasons broader than an emergency posing imminent and irreparable harm, as defendants seem to urge. Defs.' Stay Reply ¶ 1 ("There is no emergency and this alone is good cause to stay the briefing at this time."). Even if the alleged direct harm from the presidential proclamation, Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, Proclamation 10973, 90 Fed. Reg. 46207 (Sept. 19, 2025), does not manifest for some members within an association "until March 2026," Defs.' Stay Reply ¶ 1, other members of the Chambers of Commerce not subject to the H-1B visa cap and all of the Association of American Universities' members, do allege present harm and are entitled to prompt adjudication of their claims. Pls.' Opp'n to Stay 5-6. For instance, the Vice Chancellor for Clinical Affairs and CEO for Wash U Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis represented that the Department of Anesthesiology had planned to file an application for an H1-B visa to fill a vacancy during the week of September 21st and two more soon thereafter but for the proclamation. See Pls.' Opp'n to Stay 6 (citing ECF 18-15 ¶ 10 (Scheel Decl.)). In short, the executive branch cannot rely on the lapse of appropriations to insulate itself from meaningful judicial review sought by those who allege that the executive branch's continuing actions exceed constitutional limitations and frustrate their ability, as private entities, to make plans for talent recruitment and resource allocation.Third, defendants contend that plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction as "an effort to side step" D.D.C. Standing Order, No. 25-55, Defs.' Stay Mot. ¶ 5, and "to sandbag the government and force Defendants into a quick response using skeletal staff," Defs.' Stay Reply ¶ 1, by having to respond to both a preliminary injunction and a summary judgment motion during a lapse in appropriations. Defendants posit that "[i]t is not clear how the government should proceed in addressing Plaintiffs' combined motion . . . . Plaintiffs simply assume both should be addressed." Defs.' Stay Reply ¶ 3. To further their point, defendants claim that the harms alleged by plaintiffs "amount to either a U.S. employer's decision not to participate in a regulatory program or [to] pay a program fee--neither of which is irreparable." Defs.' Stay Reply ¶ 1. To ameliorate defendants' concerns about the complexities of responding to two motions filed during a lapse in appropriations, and given the lack of any objection from the parties, the motion for a preliminary injunction will be converted to a motion for summary judgment on an expedited schedule. Plaintiffs proposed a briefing schedule that would require defendants to file an opposition on November 10, 2025. Pls.' Cross Mot. for Briefing Schedule 11. Defendants request that, should the Court deny its motion for a stay, the deadline to submit an opposition shall be thirty days from the time of the order--or November 28. Defs.' Stay Reply ¶ 5. The following SCHEDULING ORDER shall control further proceedings: (1) By November 28, 2025, defendants shall file any opposition to plaintiffs' 18 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or in the Alternative, Summary Judgment; and (2) By December 8, 2025, plaintiffs shall file any reply; (3) As necessary, any hearing will be set following completion of briefing on the pending summary judgment motion. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 29, 2025. (lcbah4)

Set/Reset Deadlines

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant Opposition To Plaintiffs' 18 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or in the Alternative, Summary Judgment Responses due by 11/28/2025. Plaintiffs Reply due by 12/8/2025. (mac)

MOTION to Intervene by TAMARA SANDERFIELD. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(mg) (Entered: 11/17/2025)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DENYING 28 Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff of Tamara Sanderfield, which pro se motion was docketed on November 17, 2025, at 10:31 P.M., for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c) and D.D.C. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7(j).Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c) requires that all motions for intervention "must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought." Likewise, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7(j) obliges "[a] motion to intervene as a party" to be "accompanied by an original of the pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought." Here, "[m]ovant has not filed such a pleading, and the Court could deny the motion based on that failure to comply with the federal rules alone." Friends of the Earth v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, No. 12-cv-363 (ABJ), 2012 WL 13054264, *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2012). Although "[d]ocuments filed by pro se litigants... are 'to be liberally construed,'" "even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Id. at n.4 (first quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); and then quoting Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987)); see also Hedrick v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 216 F. Supp. 3d 84, 93 (D.D.C. 2016) ("[E]ven a pro se plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's local rules[.]"). For failure to comply with the federal rules and local rules, the 28 Motion to Intervene is denied. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 18, 2025. (lcbah4) Modified on 11/19/2025. (zalh)

Order on Motion to Intervene

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment (opposed) by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 11/24/2025)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

Memorandum in opposition to re 29 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment (opposed) filed by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 11/25/2025)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

MINUTE ORDER (paperless), upon consideration of defendants' 29 Motion for Extension of Time and plaintiffs' 30 Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time, GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART defendants' 29 motion; and ORDERING defendants to file any opposition to plaintiffs' 18 Motion for a Preliminary injunction or in the Alternative, Summary Judgment by December 1, 2025; and plaintiffs to file any reply by December 10, 2025. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 25, 2025. (lcbah4)

NOTICE of Appearance by Tiberius T Davis on behalf of All Defendants (Davis, Tiberius) (Entered: 11/26/2025)

Set/Reset Deadlines

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Opposition To Plaintiffs' 18 Motion for a Preliminary injunction or in the Alternative, Summary Judgment due by 12/01/2025. Plaintiffs Reply due by 12/10/2025. (mac)

NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn M. Girdharry on behalf of All Defendants (Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Mary Schnoor on behalf of CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Schnoor, Mary) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Emmett Witkovsky-Eldred on behalf of CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Witkovsky-Eldred, Emmett) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

NOTICE of Appearance by Alex Christopher Boota on behalf of CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Boota, Alex) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

Memorandum in opposition to re 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction or, in the alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration Jackson, # 3 Declaration McTague, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

1 Statement of Facts

View on RECAP

2 Declaration Jackson

View on RECAP

3 Declaration McTague

View on RECAP

4 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration Jackson, # 3 Declaration McTague, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

1 Statement of Facts

View on RECAP

2 Declaration Jackson

View on RECAP

3 Declaration McTague

View on RECAP

4 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

MOTION Relief from LR 7(n) by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

RESPONSE re 38 MOTION Relief from LR 7(n) filed by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 12/02/2025)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

Cross MOTION to Hold in Abeyance re 37 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, 38 MOTION Relief from LR 7(n) by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 12/02/2025)

.Order

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING, upon consideration of defendants' 38 Motion for Relief from Local Rule 7(n) and plaintiffs' 39 Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Relief from Local Rule 7(n) and Cross-Motion to Hold Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in Abeyance, defendants to file by December 4, 2025, at 2 P.M., any reply in support of its 38 motion for relief from Local Rule 7(n) and any opposition to plaintiffs' 39 cross-motion to hold defendants' motion for summary judgment in abeyance. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 3, 2025. (lcbah4)

Memorandum in opposition to re 40 Cross MOTION to Hold in Abeyance re 37 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, 38 MOTION Relief from LR 7(n) filed by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

REPLY to opposition to motion re 38 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief from LCvR 7(n) filed by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

Set/Reset Deadlines

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion to Hold in Abeyance

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Reply In Support Of Its 38 Motion For Relief From Local Rule 7(n) And Any Opposition To Plaintiffs' 39 Cross-Motion To Hold Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment In Abeyance due by 12/4/2025. (mac)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DENYING, upon consideration of defendants' 38 Motion for Relief from Local Rule 7(n) ("Defs.' Mot."), their 42 Reply to Opp'n to Mot. re Mot. for Misc. Relief ("Defs.' Reply"), and plaintiffs' 39 Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Relief from Local Rule 7(n) and Cross-Motion to Hold Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in Abeyance, defendants' 38 motion for relief from Local Rule 7(n); ORDERING defendants to file the administrative record by December 5, 2025; and DENYING, as moot and for failure to comply with Local Rule 7(m), plaintiffs' 39 cross-motion to hold defendants' motion for summary judgment in abeyance. Local Rule 7(n) states that "[i]n cases involving the judicial review of administrative agency actions, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the agency must file a certified list of the contents of the administrative record... simultaneously with the filing of a dispositive motion." D.D.C. Local Rule 7(n)(1) (emphasis added). Though filing a dispositive motion, see Defs.' 37 Cross Mot. for Summ. J., defendants declined to file a certified list of the contents of the administrative record, explaining that "[t]he administrative record is not required to resolve the pending motions" and that "there is no legitimate reason to burden the Defendants with production of an index of the administrative record at this time." Defs.' Mot. at 3, 5. The time for defendants to request such relief was before filing their dispositive motion. Further, production of the administrative record would not create a "burden" for defendants, given their representation that "because there is no final agency action, there is no record to produce." Defs.' Mot. at 5; see also Defs.' Reply at 6 ("These are not final agency actions requiring a record. Indeed, without a final agency action, there is no record." (emphasis original)). If no administrative record exists, defendants may easily say so.Defendants' requests so far in this case have been amply accommodated. Plaintiffs' first dispositive motion was originally styled as a preliminary injunction, which would have provided defendants with just seven days to respond. See 18 Mot. for Prelim. Inj. or, in the Alternative, Mot. for Summ. J.; D.D.C. Local Rule 65.1(c). Defendants moved for the Court to stay, or, in the alternative, give them thirty days from the time of the Court's order to file their opposition, which motion was granted over plaintiffs' objection that defendants' time for response be limited to November 10, seventeen days after receiving the preliminary injunction. With the parties' consent, the Court converted the preliminary injunction into a motion for summary judgment and gave defendants the thirty days for which they had asked. See Minute Order (Oct. 29, 2025) ("To ameliorate defendants' concerns about the complexities of responding to two motions filed during a lapse in appropriations, and given the lack of any objection from the parties, the motion for a preliminary injunction will be converted to a motion for summary judgment on an expedited schedule."). Defendants subsequently requested an extension of their proposed and adopted deadline and, again over plaintiffs' objection, defendants were granted an additional three days to file opposition. See Minute Order (Nov. 25, 2025). During none of this prior briefing did defendants indicate that they did not intend to follow Local Rule 7(n), and they did not do so until they had already broken Local Rule 7(n) by filing a dispositive motion in this matter, without the required administrative record. Defendants are ORDERED to comply with Local Rule 7(n) by December 5, 2025. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 4, 2025. (lcbah4)

NOTICE of Appearance by Matt A. Crapo on behalf of FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM (Crapo, Matt) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief, # 2 Exhibit [Proposed] Order Granting Motion For Leave)(Crapo, Matt) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit [Proposed] Order Granting Motion For Leave

View on RECAP

NOTICE of Compliance with LCvR 7(n) and Court Order by KRISTI NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit State, # 2 Exhibit CBP, # 3 Exhibit USCIS)(McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

1 Exhibit State

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit CBP

View on RECAP

3 Exhibit USCIS

View on RECAP

AMICUS BRIEF by FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM. (mg) (Entered: 12/08/2025)

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE REVIEW. The attached document requires leave to file: NICHOLAS HAYS, NON-PARTY'S Letter. Reason(s): Other- NON-PARTY. (mg) (Entered: 12/11/2025)

Set/Reset Deadlines

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Administrative Record due by 12/5/2025. (mac)

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the Federation for American Immigration Reform's 44 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief to which all parties consent. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 5, 2025. (lcbah4)

Memorandum in opposition to re 37 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Condrad Daniels, # 2 Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 12/10/2025)

1 Supplemental Declaration of Condrad Daniels

View on RECAP

2 Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts

View on RECAP

3 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

REPLY to opposition to motion re 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,,,,, Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,, filed by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Condrad Daniels, # 2 Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hughes, Paul) (Entered: 12/10/2025)

1 Supplemental Declaration of Condrad Daniels

View on RECAP

2 Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts

View on RECAP

3 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

MINUTE ORDER (paperless), upon consideration of plaintiffs' request for a hearing, see Pls.' 18 Mot. for Preliminary Injunction or, in the alternative, MOTION for Summary Judgment at 2, and the fact that briefing on plaintiffs' pending motion and defendants' pending 37 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, will only be completed on December 17, 2025, due to extensions granted at defendants' request, see Minute Order (Oct. 29, 2025) (giving defendants thirty days to oppose plaintiffs' motion instead of the default of seven days provided by the local rules); Minute Order (Nov. 25, 2025) (granting defendants additional three days to file an opposition), the parties are DIRECTED to appear in Courtroom 26A for a hearing on the pending motions on December 19, 2025, at 10 A.M. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 10, 2025. (lcbah4)

.Order

NOTICE: Members of the public or media who wish to listen to live audio of the hearing scheduled for December 19, 2025 at 10:00AM ET, without physically attending the proceeding, may do so by dialing the Toll Free Number: 833-990-9400, Meeting ID: 491822013. Any use of the public access telephone line requires adherence to the general prohibition against photographing, recording, livestreaming, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings (including those held by telephone or videoconference), as set out in Standing Order No. 24-31 (JEB). Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court-issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. (mac)

MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by KRISTI L. NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/15/2025)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

Set/Reset Hearings

Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 12/19/2025 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26A- In Person before Judge Beryl A. Howell. (mac)

REPLY to opposition to motion re 37 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by KRISTI L. NOEM, MARCO A. RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (McTague, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beryl A. Howell: Motion Hearing held on 12/19/2025 re 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court Heard Oral Arguments From The Parties. The Court Reserves Judgment. (Court Reporter ELIZABETH DAVILA.) (mac)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Beryl A. Howell, held on 12-19-2025; Page Numbers: 1 - 112. Date of Issuance: 12-23-2025. Court Reporter: Elizabeth Davila, Telephone number: 202-354-3242, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form

ORDER DENYING plaintiffs' [18] Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTING defendants' [37] Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; and DENYING as moot defendants' [50] Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. See Memorandum Opinion for further details. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 23, 2025. (lcbah4)

MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiffs' [18] Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment; defendants' [37] Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; and defendants' [50] Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 23, 2025. (lcbah4)

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to [54] Memorandum & Opinion, [53] Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,, by ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Filing fee $ 605, receipt number ADCDC-12156980. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Hughes, Paul)

Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid re [55] Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,. (mg)

USCA Case Number 25-5473 for 55 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES. (znmw)