In this consolidated case, professional associations representing nurse practitioners, physician assistants, therapists, public health workers, and educators sued the Department of Education, challenging a May 2026 final rule that amended the regulatory definition of "professional degree" for federal graduate student loan purposes and imposed an imminent July 1, 2026 effective date. The court granted plaintiffs' request for a stay under APA Section 705 of the new regulatory definition (including added requirements like free-from-supervision), concluding they were likely to succeed on the merits of at least one APA claim and that defendants would not suffer irreparable harm, but denied requests to enjoin the statutory loan caps or to affirmatively order the Department to treat certain degrees like physician assistant programs as "professional." The core reasoning emphasized the procedural distinctions between a Section 705 stay and a preliminary injunction under Rule 65, the absence of a bond requirement for stays of agency action, and the need to preserve the status quo pending full judicial review of the rule's compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
business & regulatoryfederal powerhealthcareprocedure
The case involved plaintiff Jose Eliezer Martinez-Andino, a Honduran immigrant with no criminal history, who alleged that immigration authorities detained him, moved him between multiple facilities without allowing contact with counsel, and removed him to Honduras based on an allegedly unknowing and involuntary agreement to depart. Plaintiff claimed these actions violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, the APA, and ICE regulations by denying him access to counsel and proper process before removal, and he sought mandamus relief to facilitate his return, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief, including a TRO. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the APA claim, a claim under 8 C.F.R. § 292.5, and one defendant, while allowing Fifth Amendment and related claims to proceed. It granted the TRO in part, ordering defendants to facilitate plaintiff's return to the United States for proper processing of his immigration case, based on a likelihood of success on the due process claims showing that the removal resulted from violations of plaintiff's rights to counsel and process, but denied other requested relief as moot or beyond the court's authority.
This case involves three plaintiffs employed as security officers by United American Security, LLC (doing business as GardaWorld) who alleged that the company violated the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law by failing to timely pay minimum wages and fringe benefits. The consolidated actions included multiple pending motions: defendant's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim in both cases, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on one count, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, defendant's motions to strike certain exhibits, and plaintiffs' motion for sanctions arising from defendant's denied motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel. The court denied the motion to dismiss in Merritt, granted the motion to dismiss in part (as to three counts) and denied it in part (as to two counts) in Chang, denied partial summary judgment, denied class certification without prejudice as premature, denied the motions to strike as moot, and granted sanctions, ordering defense counsel and the firm to reimburse plaintiffs $172,635.10 in attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for the meritless and tactically timed disqualification motion.
This case involves nonprofit organizations challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture's termination of several federal grants under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging both improper terminations of their specific grants and a broader agency policy of mass terminations driven by executive orders that conflict with statutory mandates. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction halting the terminations of the plaintiffs' grants and now addresses the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the administrative record, which defendants had limited to individualized reviews rather than any agency-wide policy. The court granted the motion in part, ordering supplementation of the record and limited discovery, while denying sanctions at this stage. It reasoned that the full record must cover the policy-based claims to allow proper judicial review, emphasizing that executive agencies must comply with congressional statutes and appropriations when terminating grants, not solely with current executive priorities. The decision rejects efforts to limit the record in a way that could undermine the broader challenge.
In these consolidated cases, plaintiff Lindsay Olson, a jury consultant, sued multiple defense attorneys and their law firms for copyright infringement after they downloaded her April 2022 jury-attitude report from a public docket and attached it to venue-transfer motions filed for January 6 criminal defendants, without her permission. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motions, holding that the complaints alleged plausible infringement claims based on the unauthorized reproduction and use of the report, even though it had been publicly filed and statutory damages were unavailable due to lack of timely registration.
In this case, immigration attorneys and individuals sued Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that CBP maintained a policy or practice of violating FOIA by failing to process requests for travel and immigration records within the required 30 business days. Plaintiffs sought class certification for all persons with overdue FOIA requests to CBP and opposed the agency's motion for summary judgment, while requesting discovery. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, denied class certification as moot, and denied the discovery motion. The court reasoned that CBP's declarations demonstrated substantial increases in FOIA workload as an exceptional circumstance justifying delays, that the agency had taken diligent steps to improve processing, and that no evidence showed a pattern of noncompliance beyond ordinary operations.
