Should the government be ordered to report its steps carrying out the order?
The Democratic Party plaintiffs say the government hid how it is carrying out the order and want a reporting order. The motion is briefed with no ruling yet.
Democratic Party plaintiffs ask for an order requiring implementation updates
They argued the government failed to tell the court about its citizenship-list portal and Postal Service procedures, as the court expected.
The government opposed the request.
The plaintiffs replied in support of their motion.
Next step: Ruling on the reporting request
Should the court dismiss the challenges to the executive order?
The government and the states moved to dismiss in spring 2026. Briefing closed May 22, and the court has not ruled.
The government asks to file one combined brief on injunctions and dismissal
The government asked to answer all three injunction motions and support its motion to dismiss in a single brief.
The NAACP plaintiffs filed a response to the request.
The court allowed one combined brief of up to 70 pages and set the dismissal briefing schedule.
The government and the intervening states ask to dismiss the case
The twelve states filed their own motion to dismiss.
The government moved to dismiss all three consolidated cases for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
All three plaintiff groups opposed both motions to dismiss.
The government replied, with a supplemental declaration from USCIS.
The states replied in support of their motion.
Next step: Ruling on the motions to dismiss
Should the executive order be blocked before agencies carry it out?No, for now: both courts found it premature ·
The district court denied all three groups' requests as likely premature, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed for the Democratic Party plaintiffs, who alone appealed.
All three plaintiff groups ask to block parts of the executive order
Each group asked to block Sections 2(a) and 3(b) of the order as beyond presidential and postal power and contrary to the Privacy Act.
- Docket entry 34 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 29 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 37 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 55 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 53 (opens the public source in a new tab)
- Docket entry 54 (opens the public source in a new tab)
The government filed one combined brief opposing the injunctions and supporting dismissal, later refiled to meet formatting rules.
The twelve states opposed all three injunction motions.
Each plaintiff group replied in support of its motion.
The court heard argument on May 14 and took the motions under advisement.
The court found the plaintiffs had not shown likely standing or ripe claims, because agencies had not yet acted on the order.
Democratic Party plaintiffs ask the appeals court to speed up their appeal
The Democratic Party plaintiffs asked for an emergency expedited schedule for the appeal.
The government opposed expediting the appeal.
The Democratic Party plaintiffs replied in support of expediting.
The panel set a fast briefing schedule; Judge Katsas would have denied the motion.
The Democratic Party plaintiffs appeal the denial
They appealed and argued the order's directives were already causing harm and should be blocked before the election.
The government defended the district court's denial.
The twelve states filed their own brief defending the denial.
The plaintiffs replied, pointing to agency actions taken after the district court ruled.
The panel held the challenge likely unripe because agencies had not acted, and said prompt relief could be sought if they did.
Should the Postal Service's ballot mail rule be blocked while the case proceeds?Yes, for now: the rule is blocked ·
After the Postal Service issued its rule, all plaintiffs renewed their requests. The court blocked the rule but refused to enjoin Section 3 of the executive order itself.
All three plaintiff groups ask to block the new ballot mail rule
Each group asked to block the rule before the election; the Democratic Party plaintiffs also again sought to block Section 3 of the order.
The government called the rule a modest mail regulation within postal power and asked that any injunction reach only ballot refusals.
The states argued the claimed harms were speculative and that candidate standing did not apply to a rule that does not govern vote counting.
Each plaintiff group replied in support of its renewed motion.
The court found the Postal Service likely lacked power to create the voter portal and ballot checks, and blocked the whole rule, but not Section 3.
Who besides the original parties may join the case?States admitted by permission; McCray denied ·
Twelve states were allowed in as defendants by the court's permission, not as of right. A separate request by an individual, Emanuel McCray, was denied.
Twelve states led by Missouri ask to join as defendants
The states asked to join as defendants, as of right or with the court's permission, and attached a proposed motion to dismiss.
The Democratic Party plaintiffs opposed intervention; the LULAC and NAACP plaintiffs opposed intervention as of right.
The United States opposed intervention as of right and took no position on permissive intervention.
The states replied in support of their motion.
The court found the states had no right to intervene but let them join by permission, on the same briefing schedule as the government.
Emanuel McCray asks to join the case and have it dismissed
McCray, filing without a lawyer, asked to intervene and to dismiss the case.
The court denied the motion to intervene in a one-line order.
Should the plaintiffs get fast-tracked discovery before the injunction ruling?No, for now: denied without prejudice ·
The court denied early discovery without prejudice, saying it could order it later if discovery would help resolve the injunction motions.
The LULAC plaintiffs ask for expedited discovery
The government filed its opposition to the LULAC plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery.
The LULAC plaintiffs replied in support of their request to expedite.
The court denied the request but said it may order expedited discovery later if it would help decide the injunction motions.
Should the case go to the judge handling an earlier related case?Yes: the cases were reassigned ·
The plaintiffs marked the case as related to an earlier one; the government objected, and the court sent the cases for random reassignment.
The government asks to reassign the case away from the related-case judge
The plaintiffs told the court the case was related to an earlier case before the same judge.
The government objected to the related-case notice and asked that the case be reassigned.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the motions to reassign, and the cases were randomly reassigned to Judge Nichols.