Derrick Allen Sr. filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the State of North Carolina, its governor, and two state agencies, alleging that they indefinitely suspended his North Carolina driver’s license in retaliation for a prior lawsuit he filed against the DMV and seeking reinstatement plus damages of $372,000 or $512 billion. The court first noted that Allen failed to provide his address as required by local rules. It then dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the complaint raised no federal question because challenges to state driver’s-license decisions are governed by state law and Allen’s passing references to race and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were too conclusory to support federal claims. The court further found no diversity jurisdiction, as Allen did not adequately plead his citizenship and failed to allege facts showing that his claimed damages met the $75,000 threshold.
The case involved a Guatemalan national in removal proceedings who applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his deportation would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his disabled son, who qualified as a "child" under 21. An immigration judge indicated in 2024 that the application would likely be granted once annual statutory caps allowed, but the plaintiff sued in district court in 2026 for a preliminary injunction to fix the son's age as of the merits hearing date, fearing the son would soon turn 21 and lose qualifying-relative status. The court denied the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Immigration and Nationality Act's zipper clause, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), because the claim arose from ongoing removal proceedings and must instead be raised through a petition for review of a final order in the appropriate court of appeals. The court further noted that the plaintiff had not shown certain and imminent irreparable harm or that the balance of equities and public interest favored intervening in the administrative process before a final decision.
In Atzili v. Islamic Republic of Iran, victims of the October 7, 2023 attacks sued Binance-related entities (BAM Management US Holdings, BAM Trading Services, and Binance Holdings Limited), alleging that the defendants’ inadequate sanctions, anti-money laundering, and know-your-customer controls on their cryptocurrency platforms allowed Hamas- and Iran-linked users to conduct transactions that supported the attacks, giving rise to claims under federal antiterrorism statutes and state tort law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court held that aiding-and-abetting liability was not plausibly alleged because general knowledge that assistance reached a terrorist organization is insufficient under D.C. Circuit precedent in Atchley v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd. It further ruled that the claimed compliance defects did not constitute “activities” involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life under 18 U.S.C. § 2331(1), so primary liability claims failed. With no federal claims remaining, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
In these consolidated cases, Democratic campaign committees and civil rights organizations challenged Executive Order 14,399, which directed federal agencies to strengthen citizenship verification for federal elections by requiring the Postal Service to propose mail-in ballot design rules and by compiling state lists of eligible citizen voters from federal records. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction. It held that claims targeting the Postal Service rulemaking were unripe because no notice of proposed rulemaking had been issued and no final rule existed. For the citizenship-list provision, the court found that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of Article III standing or imminent irreparable harm, as the required infrastructure had not been built, no lists had been created or sent to states, and the Order imposed no obligations on states or the plaintiffs themselves. The court noted that the plaintiffs could renew their requests if concrete agency actions later materialized.
The case concerned Lorient Roxboro, LLC, an EB-5 new commercial enterprise, and its investor Vishnu Menon, who challenged USCIS denials of Lorient’s I-956F project application (due to a missed biometrics appointment and other deficiencies), Menon’s I-526E petition, and his I-485 adjustment-of-status application, seeking a stay of the I-485 denial to prevent accrual of unlawful presence. The district court denied Menon’s motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction staying the effective date of the I-485 denial. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and Patel v. Garland strip jurisdiction to review discretionary I-485 denials outside of removal proceedings in a court of appeals, that Menon’s due-process claim was not properly presented in that forum, and that success on the underlying I-956F challenge would not render the I-485 denial reviewable; it further found that equitable factors did not favor relief because any harm was not irreparable and immigration matters warrant deference to the Executive.
James Adeyemi sued the Social Security Administration in federal district court, seeking a preliminary injunction and apparently challenging some agency action or decision. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment be granted and that the plaintiff’s injunction request be denied. Neither party objected to the report within the required timeframe. The district judge therefore adopted the report in full as the court’s own findings and conclusions, granted summary judgment to the agency, denied the injunction, and closed the case as a final order.
.jpg?width=900)