James Emanuel Boasberg

In A.R.R. v. Rubio, six Afghan asylees living in Colorado sued the Secretary of State and the Department of State under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging State Department cables implementing presidential proclamations that suspended entry from Afghanistan and blocked approval of their Form I-730 petitions to bring family members from Afghanistan to the United States; they also alleged unreasonable delay in adjudicating those petitions and sought to litigate under pseudonyms due to safety risks. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed pseudonymously. Applying the five-factor balancing test from In re Sealed Case, the court found that the first two factors favored anonymity because the case involved sensitive asylum matters and credible fears of Taliban retaliation against the plaintiffs and their families; the third factor strongly supported it given that 16 of the 30 plaintiffs are minors; the fourth was mixed because the suit sought both programmatic and individual relief against the government; and the fifth favored pseudonymity since the defendants already knew the plaintiffs’ identities. On balance, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had overcome the presumption in favor of public disclosure of litigants’ names.

immigrationprocedure

The case arose after the Government issued two grand-jury subpoenas to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors seeking records on building renovations and related congressional testimony by Chair Jerome Powell; the district court previously quashed the subpoenas, finding they were issued to harass Powell over policy disagreements with the President rather than any good-faith criminal inquiry. After closing its investigation without appealing, the Government moved to vacate that opinion and order, arguing that any appeal would now be moot and that the decision should be erased to avoid legal consequences. The court denied the motion. It reasoned that vacatur is an extraordinary equitable remedy, that the Government had voluntarily created the alleged mootness by dropping the case and declining to appeal, and that the decision carried no precedential weight and only negligible preclusive risk—particularly against the Government—while the public interest and fairness to the prevailing party favored preserving it.

criminal lawprocedure

In Anderson v. BDO USA, P.C., a 70-year-old former Managing Director at the accounting firm alleged age discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act after being terminated for refusing a proposed shift from salaried pay to an hourly structure with reduced compensation and work limits. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied BDO’s motion for summary judgment. The court determined that BDO’s stated reason—Anderson’s low billable hours and utilization rate—was a legitimate nondiscriminatory explanation that could be rebutted, as a reasonable jury could find it pretextual given the lack of any contemporaneous records setting productivity targets, internal emails discussing a “nudge” toward retirement, and the abrupt compensation proposal that would have sharply cut his pay. The court concluded that the record permitted an inference that age was a substantial motivating factor in the employment decision.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this FOIA case, pro se plaintiff Darryl C. Carter sought to compel the FBI to produce a broad array of unfiltered documents, emails, and other records related to electronically submitted formal complaints and tips received between June 1 and 22, 2021. After Carter declined to narrow his request despite agency outreach, the FBI conducted a search that identified over 2 million potentially responsive pages, produced 1,475 pages consistent with his stated $50 duplication fee limit, and withheld 73 pages under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E). The court granted the government’s unopposed motion for summary judgment, finding that the agency’s declarations established an adequate search reasonably calculated to locate responsive records, that fee-based processing and limited production complied with FOIA obligations, and that the withholdings properly protected personal privacy interests and non-public law-enforcement techniques without any contrary evidence from Carter.

federal powerprocedurecriminal law

In Warren v. Islamic Republic of Iran, victims of a Taliban-linked bombing in Afghanistan’s diplomatic quarter and their family members sued Iran for allegedly supporting the perpetrators, with some plaintiffs seeking to proceed under pseudonyms due to fears of retaliation. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion for pseudonymity at this preliminary stage for plaintiffs living in or with family in Afghanistan. Applying the five-factor balancing test from In re Sealed Case, the court found that the risk of physical harm from the Taliban—based on the plaintiffs’ prior targeting for U.S. employment—outweighed the presumption of public disclosure, particularly given the involvement of minors and the fact that Iran would receive the real names under seal with no demonstrated prejudice. The ruling is subject to later review by the assigned district judge.

proceduretorts & liability

In Doe v. Islamic Republic of Iran, a naturalized U.S. citizen and journalist who had reported critically on the Iranian government sued Iran and its agencies under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, alleging that Iranian agents had arrested his relatives, issued death threats, and carried out multiple physical attacks on him in retaliation for his work. The plaintiff moved to proceed under a pseudonym to shield his identity from public disclosure. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion. Applying the five-factor balancing test from D.C. Circuit precedent, the court found that the need to protect sensitive safety concerns and avoid retaliatory harm to the plaintiff and his family outweighed the public interest in open proceedings, that suing a foreign government for damages supported anonymity, and that defendants would face no prejudice because the plaintiff offered to disclose his identity to them under seal.

free speechcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

John Doe sued the United States, alleging a structural defect in the nationwide internet architecture due to the lack of any user-level opt-in or opt-out mechanism for mature content at the ISP level, and sought a declaration that the system is unlawful plus an order requiring the FCC to implement such a mechanism. He also moved to proceed under a pseudonym. The court denied the pseudonymity motions. Applying the five-factor balancing test from In re Sealed Case, the court found that Doe had not shown his privacy interests outweighed the public interest in disclosure: the case did not involve sensitive personal information about him, his asserted risks of harm were speculative, he is an adult, and he sought broad programmatic relief against the government that would affect all internet users, while only the lack of prejudice to the defendant slightly favored anonymity.

procedurefree speechfederal powercivil rights

In *Dib v. Shea*, a Syrian citizen living in Jordan sued the State Department under the Administrative Procedure Act and for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the agency to finish processing his K-1 fiancée visa application, which had been placed in administrative processing after an initial refusal under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) following his July 2024 interview. The court held that the suit was not barred by consular nonreviewability because the plaintiff challenged only the timing of the decision, not its substance. However, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for unreasonable delay. It reasoned that no statutory deadline applied to nonimmigrant visa processing and that delays of roughly two years or less fall within the range courts have consistently found reasonable under the TRAC factors.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

Plaintiff Robert A. Gordon, a D.C. resident proceeding pro se, sued the Governor and Attorney General of Georgia and the State itself, claiming that historical Jim Crow laws on segregation, zoning, and voting had caused ongoing economic and other injuries to Black Georgians and their descendants in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Ninth Amendment, and sought relief for a putative class. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia raised the issue of venue sua sponte and concluded it was improper there. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue does not lie in D.C. because the defendants reside in Georgia and virtually all the challenged events and policies occurred in Georgia; the plaintiff’s current residence and alleged continuing injuries in D.C. are too attenuated to satisfy the statute. Proper venue exists in the Northern District of Georgia under both § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2), so the court transferred the case there in the interest of justice rather than dismissing it.

civil rightselectionsprocedure

In this case, 49 visa applicants sued the State Department, alleging that its January 2026 policy indefinitely suspending visa processing for nationals of 75 countries violates the Immigration and Nationality Act by imposing categorical denials based solely on nationality. The plaintiffs sought judicial review of their applications along with declaratory and injunctive relief against the policy, and they filed a motion to proceed under pseudonym to protect their identities. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing only one plaintiff—Michelle Doe, a Jamaican national—to use a pseudonym. It applied the D.C. Circuit’s five-factor balancing test, which weighs litigants’ privacy and safety interests against the strong public interest in open proceedings, particularly in suits challenging government action. The court found that Michelle Doe demonstrated a concrete risk of physical harm from her abusive ex-spouse, while the other plaintiffs offered only speculative or conclusory assertions of reputational, emotional, or professional harm that did not outweigh the presumption of disclosure.

immigrationprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a long-running family dispute over the New Mighty U.S. Trust (NMUST), an American trust allegedly created in 2005 by some of Taiwanese magnate Y.T. Wang’s children in coordination with a trusted associate, contrary to Y.T.’s wishes to benefit all his heirs; plaintiffs (several of Y.T.’s children from his second marriage, his widow, and his grandson as estate representative) sued the trust, its manager Clearbridge, and its beneficiary foundation to void or reform it and recover assets. Defendants moved to dismiss, primarily arguing the claims were time-barred under a three-year statute of limitations, along with issue preclusion and failure to state claims. The court denied the motion except as to one count. It held that, even assuming the shortest limitations period, the complaint could not be dismissed as untimely because factual disputes existed over when plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of their claims (they alleged discovery only in 2019 after years of alleged concealment), and such issues could not be resolved against them at the pleading stage.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerns a motion by six detained noncitizens challenging a December 2025 Department of Homeland Security policy that bars U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from collecting biometrics from individuals in ICE custody who have pending immigration petitions. The plaintiffs, who seek to bring a class action alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedure Act, and Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, asked the court for permission to proceed under pseudonyms and to file supporting declarations under seal, citing risks of retaliation, harm to themselves and their families, and the sensitive nature of their immigration and medical information. The court granted both requests, allowing the plaintiffs to litigate pseudonymously and keeping the declarations sealed, subject to later review by the assigned district judge. It reached this result after weighing the five factors from In re Sealed Case for pseudonymity—finding that the sensitive and personal character of the claims, risk of harm, and lack of prejudice to defendants outweighed the facts that none of the plaintiffs is a minor and that they seek programmatic relief against the government—and after applying the six Hubbard factors for sealing, most of which supported nondisclosure of the declarations due to their private content.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

In this shareholder derivative action, plaintiff Richard Koehler sued Danaher Corporation’s directors and officers on the company’s behalf, alleging they concealed the end of its pandemic-era growth and sold over $50 million in personal stock at inflated prices, in violation of federal securities laws and Delaware fiduciary-duty and unjust-enrichment rules. Koehler moved to file his complaint partially under seal, seeking to redact confidential business information drawn from nonpublic Section 220 documents that Danaher had designated proprietary. The court granted the motion, allowing limited redactions while ordering a redacted version placed on the public docket. It reached this result after weighing the six Hubbard factors, finding that the first four—need for access, prior public access, objection to disclosure, and strength of privacy interests in internal board materials—favored sealing, the fifth was neutral, and only the sixth weighed against it, so that the balance supported protecting the information at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved two families from Yemen and Sudan whose previously approved immigrant and exchange visas were canceled and refused after President Trump’s June 2025 Proclamation 10,949 restricted entry from their countries under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State under the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act, claiming both that the specific cancellations and refusals were unlawful and that the State Department maintained broader “No-Visa” and “No-NIE” policies that improperly treated entry restrictions as barring visa issuance and national-interest exceptions. The court granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion to dismiss, holding that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability barred the plaintiffs’ case-specific challenges to the individual visa refusals but did not foreclose their forward-looking claims attacking the alleged policies themselves. The court reasoned that while consular officers’ discretionary decisions in particular cases are generally unreviewable, challenges to the lawfulness of agency policies or regulations that govern those decisions remain subject to judicial review.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), a nonprofit that publishes standards of care and advocates for gender-affirming medical treatments, after the Federal Trade Commission issued it a Civil Investigative Demand seeking extensive internal documents as part of an inquiry into possible false or unsubstantiated representations about pediatric gender-dysphoria treatments. WPATH sued the FTC, alleging that the demand constituted unlawful First Amendment retaliation for its protected speech supporting such care, and it sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the CID. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the injunction, incorporating its analysis from a parallel case brought by the Endocrine Society. The court concluded that WPATH was likely to succeed on the merits of its retaliation claim, had shown irreparable harm from the chilling effect on its advocacy and operations, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief, given evidence of administration hostility toward organizations promoting gender-affirming care. The injunction prohibits the FTC from implementing or enforcing the CID against WPATH while allowing the agency to pursue other investigative methods.

free speechhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

Plaintiffs Uno Doe and Dos Doe, naturalized U.S. citizens, sued the Islamic Republic of Iran, the IRGC, MOIS, and associated agents under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Anti-Terrorism Act, and Torture Victim Protection Act. They alleged a decades-long campaign of surveillance, harassment, intimidation, and violence stemming from Uno Doe’s family ties to Iran’s former regime and the plaintiffs’ political opposition. Fearing further retaliation if their identities became public, they moved to proceed under pseudonym. The court granted the motion after applying the D.C. Circuit’s five-factor balancing test, concluding that the plaintiffs’ privacy and safety interests—particularly the risk of harm from defendants and third-party proxies—outweighed the public’s interest in disclosure at this initial stage, with defendants able to obtain the names if they appear and the order remaining subject to later reconsideration.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

Sagebrush Health Services, which operates clinics enrolled in the federal 340B drug discount program, sued HRSA (under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) after the agency removed multiple clinics from the program following an investigation into eligibility and possible drug diversion. The clinics had been participating based on state grants for STD treatment, but HRSA declined recertification and terminated participation. Sagebrush challenged HRSA’s statutory authority to remove the clinics, claimed the actions were arbitrary, capricious, and procedurally flawed, and contested statements requiring repayment of improper discounts to manufacturers. The district court granted summary judgment to HRSA on all claims. It held that the agency had clear statutory power to remove entities found ineligible at recertification or for systematic diversion, that the removals followed proper procedures and were not arbitrary, and that the repayment statements were non-final advisory communications that imposed no binding legal consequences and thus could not be challenged.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Ovanova Construction Services LLC, renewable-energy developers, and several REAP grant applicants who sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They alleged that USDA had unreasonably delayed deciding their Rural Energy for America Program grant applications—some pending over 18 months—in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and they sought a court order compelling the agency to act. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies under 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e), which requires appeals of adverse decisions (including agency inaction) through USDA’s process before suing in court. Because this exhaustion requirement is statutory, the court had no authority to excuse the plaintiffs’ failure to appeal, even on grounds of futility.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

Plaintiffs Kelly and Joseph Shofner, proceeding pro se, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Shenyang Dadong District People’s Court and related defendants, asserting claims under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Alien Tort Statute, and Torture Victim Protection Act arising from an early-education investment project in China. They submitted an eight-page public complaint and simultaneously moved to file a separate, unredacted 300-plus-page version with exhibits under seal, citing concerns over personal safety and foreign government matters. The court denied the sealing motion without prejudice. It reasoned that the request was overbroad, effectively seeking to withhold the operative complaint from public view rather than using targeted redactions, and that sealing could not shield information from the defendant parties themselves, who would learn the allegations through litigation; applying the Hubbard factors, the strong presumption of public access outweighed the asserted privacy interests because the redacted material formed the core of the claims. The court allowed the Shofners to refile a properly structured motion with a single operative complaint containing limited redactions.

procedurecivil rightstorts & liabilityfederal power

In this case, plaintiff John Doe, proceeding pro se as “Citizen A,” sued the United States to require internet service providers to implement opt-in or opt-out mechanisms for mature content, while also moving to keep his identity secret from the public docket. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion to proceed pseudonymously. The court applied the five-factor balancing test from D.C. Circuit precedent, finding that the plaintiff had not shown any sensitive personal information at issue, any concrete risk of harm, involvement of minors, or an offer to disclose his identity under seal, and that he was seeking broad, program-wide relief against the government. Because the plaintiff failed to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public disclosure of litigants’ identities, the court ordered him to file the case under his real name within fourteen days or face dismissal.

procedurefree speechbusiness & regulatory