Case: Hines Immigration Law, PLLC v. Executive Office for Immigration Review
1:26-cv-01018 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: March 24, 2026
Closed Date: April 24, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges the Trump Administration’s alleged “Somali Fast-Track Policy” of expedited removal of non-detained Somali immigrants from the United States.
In early 2026, the Trump administration appeared to be making a coordinated effort to swiftly remove Somali immigrants from the United States. In the months preceding this litigation, President Trump had made multiple statements on X and other platforms describing Somali immigrants in a negative and derogatory manner. On March 24, 2026, Hines Immigration Law, PLLC, and The Advocates for Human Rights filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by Democracy Forward, the organizations sued the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the EOIR Director, and U.S. Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi, bringing five claims under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Hines Immigration Law is a private law firm specializing in non-detained asylum cases in Minnesota. The Advocates for Human Rights is a Minneapolis-based non-profit providing free legal representation to low-income immigrants in the Midwest. The organizations alleged that the EOIR was intentionally expediting immigration proceedings for non-detained Somalis as a targeted effort to remove Somali immigrants from the United States. These organizations called this effort the “Somali Fast-Track Policy” (“the Policy”). The case was assigned to Judge Carl J. Nichols.
The complaint specifically alleged that the Policy inhibited both Hines Immigration Law’s ability and The Advocates for Human Rights’ ability to represent its clients. According to the complaint, the Policy abruptly fast-tracked immigration proceedings for non-detained Somali nationals on a dedicated national docket before a handpicked subset of immigration judges. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants truncated the timeline for Somali immigrants to consult with counsel and establish their claims by scheduling master calendar hearings with as little as one week's notice and individual merits hearings with as little as one month's notice. They further contended that all or nearly all hearings were assigned to a small subset of immigration judges, many with higher-than-average removal rates, who were physically located outside the relevant jurisdictions and conducted proceedings remotely via Webex. To address that alleged harm, the organizations sought a stay of the Policy, an injunction preventing the EOIR from enforcing the Policy, a declaration that the Policy was unlawful, and awards for costs and attorneys' fees.
On the day the complaint was filed, March 24, 2026, the organizations also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay the Policy, and a motion hearing was held on April 7, 2026. Judge Nichols issued an opinion and an order denying the motion on April 10, 2026. In his opinion, Judge Nichols held that while the record suggested a coordinated effort by the Trump administration towards non-detained Somali immigrants, the harms of such efforts were felt by the Somali immigrants, and that the plaintiff organizations alleged harms not redressable by the court. Additionally, because the action taken by the EOIR cannot be considered a final agency action, that action was not amenable to judicial review. 2026 WL 969020. For these reasons, Judge Nichols denied the Emergency Motion to Stay. On April 24, 2026, both Hines Immigration Law and The Advocates for Human Rights voluntarily dismissed their claims. This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Sadie Henderson (6/19/2026)
Claire Pollard (3/27/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72618270/parties/hines-immigration-law-pllc-v-executive-office-for-immigration-review/
Nichols, Carl John (District of Columbia)
Jasrasaria, Jyoti (District of Columbia)
Rodriguez, Yenisey (District of Columbia)
Thurston, Robin F. (District of Columbia)
Stratton, Kimberly (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72618270/hines-immigration-law-pllc-v-executive-office-for-immigration-review/
Last updated Sept. 24, 2026, 3:36 a.m.
Docket for: HINES IMMIGRATION LAW, PLLC v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 24, 2026
Closing Date: April 24, 2026
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Hines Immigration Law Firm, PLCC, a private immigration law firm, and The Advocates for Human Rights, a nonprofit promoting internationally recognized human rights standards
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Executive Office for Immigration Review
United States Department of Justice
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-01018
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Hines Immigration Law, PLLC v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47974/ (last updated 3/27/2026).