Case: Lawfare Institute v. United States Department of State

1:26-cv-00798 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: March 6, 2026

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenges the State Department’s alleged failure to publish required text and legal authority information pertaining to international agreements as required by the amended Case-Zablocki Act.  On March 6, 2026, The Lawfare Institute, a non-profit organization, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of Columbia. The Lawfare Institute sued the U.S. Department of State under the Administrative Procedure Act and Paperwork Reduction Act, with mandamus…

This case challenges the State Department’s alleged failure to publish required text and legal authority information pertaining to international agreements as required by the amended Case-Zablocki Act. 

On March 6, 2026, The Lawfare Institute, a non-profit organization, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of Columbia. The Lawfare Institute sued the U.S. Department of State under the Administrative Procedure Act and Paperwork Reduction Act, with mandamus as an alternative. Represented by counsel from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Lawfare Institute alleged that the State Department failed to publish text and legal authority information pertaining to covered international agreements since July 2025 following a Reduction in Force (RIF) in the State Department as a part of the Trump Administration’s “Workforce Optimization Initiative” as outlined in Executive Order 14210. These international agreements allegedly include matters such as deportation deals with Central American Countries and Middle East defense agreements. The Lawfare Institute alleged that these disclosures were required by the amended Case-Zablocki Act, which provides that both binding and non-binding international agreements must be disclosed publicly, with some limited exceptions, such as national security. The Lawfare Institute sought a court order compelling the State Department to comply with the amended Act and backdating of all overdue materials, and attorney fees.

The case was originally assigned to Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on March 6, 2026, but was reassigned to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on March 9 after Judge Friedrich recused herself. 
The State Department has until June 8, 2026, to respond to the complaint.  

This case is ongoing. 

Summary Authors

Kara Wilczynski (6/2/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72372567/parties/lawfare-institute-v-united-states-department-of-state/


Judge(s)

Boasberg, James Emanuel (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Desta, Yoseph T. (District of Columbia)

Sus, Nikhel (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Berman, Keri Lane (District of Columbia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:26-cv-00798

Complaint

The Lawfare Institute v. United States Department of State

March 6, 2026

March 6, 2026

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72372567/lawfare-institute-v-united-states-department-of-state/

Last updated June 21, 2026, 3:19 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ADCDC-12283117) filed by THE LAWFARE INSTITUTE. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Department of State, # 3 Summons Marco Rubio, # 4 Summons U.S. Attorney General, # 5 Summons U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia)(Sus, Nikhel) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on RECAP

2 Summons Department of State

View on RECAP

3 Summons Marco Rubio

View on RECAP

4 Summons U.S. Attorney General

View on RECAP

5 Summons U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia

View on RECAP

March 6, 2026

March 6, 2026

Clearinghouse
2

NOTICE of Appearance by Yoseph T. Desta on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Desta, Yoseph) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

March 6, 2026

March 6, 2026

3

SUMMONS (4) Issued Electronically as to MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zhcn) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

March 6, 2026

March 6, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

March 6, 2026

March 6, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Dabney L. Friedrich. (zhcn)

March 6, 2026

March 6, 2026

4

Case randomly reassigned to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich is no longer assigned to the case. (ztnr) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

March 9, 2026

March 9, 2026

5

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to LAWFARE INSTITUTE. Attorney Yoseph T. Desta terminated. (Desta, Yoseph) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

March 31, 2026

March 31, 2026

RECAP
6

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 3/17/2026. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 5/16/2026.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 3/24/2026., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. MARCO RUBIO served on 3/24/2026; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 3/24/2026 (Sus, Nikhel) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

April 2, 2026

April 2, 2026

RECAP
7

NOTICE of Appearance by Keri Lane Berman on behalf of All Defendants (Berman, Keri) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

April 17, 2026

April 17, 2026

8

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berman, Keri) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

April 17, 2026

April 17, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to AND Set/Reset Deadlines

April 20, 2026

April 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) The Consent 8 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED; and 2) Defendants shall file their Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by June 8, 2026. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on April 20, 2026. (lcjeb1)

April 20, 2026

April 20, 2026

9

MOTION to Dismiss by MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Berman, Keri) (Entered: 06/08/2026)

June 8, 2026

June 8, 2026

10

Unopposed MOTION Waiver of LCvR 7(n) Requirements re 9 MOTION to Dismiss by MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berman, Keri) (Entered: 06/08/2026)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 8, 2026

June 8, 2026

RECAP

MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) Defendants' Unopposed 10 Motion to waive the requirements of Local Rule 7(n) is GRANTED; and 2) Defendants are relieved of the requirement to file a certified list of the contents of the administrative record simultaneously with their 9 Motion to Dismiss. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on June 9, 2026. (lcjeb4)

June 9, 2026

June 9, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) The Consent 12 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED; and 2) Plaintiff shall file its opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss no later than June 29, 2026. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on June 15, 2026. (lcjeb2)

June 15, 2026

June 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that the 11 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Stephen J. Buckingham is GRANTED. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a). Click for instructions. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on June 15, 2026. (lcjeb4)

June 15, 2026

June 15, 2026

Case Details

State / Territory:

District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

National Security

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 6, 2026

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Non-profit organization specializing in international affairs publication, specifically as it pertains to national security law and policy

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

United States Department of State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361

Constitutional Clause(s):

Appointments Clause

Other Dockets:

District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-00798

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:

Access to information systems

Recommended Citation