Documents in Doe v. Trump
Court documents in the archive for this case, each with the description the archive holds and a link to the original where there is one. Documents are listed by docket entry; an attachment sits under its entry, marked with the entry number and its own number (12-3 is the third attachment to entry 12). 137 documents.
135 of 137 documents match.
| Entry | Date | Document | Pages | Open |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DISCLOSURE statement filed by Amici Curiae Gabriel Jackson Chin, Paul Finkelman and Erika Lee in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 05/28/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 06/17/2025 09:36 AM]Disclosure Statement | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF filed by Amici Curiae American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, Communications Workers of America, National Education Association, SEIU, United Farm Workers of America and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union in 25-1169, 25-1170 in support of the Plaintiffs-Appellees and affirmance. Served on 06/17/2025. Nine paper copies identical to that of the electronically filed brief must be submitted so that they are received by the court on or before 06/20/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170]. CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. (AL) [Entered: 06/17/2025 03:53 PM]Amicus Curiae Brief | 38 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| DISCLOSURE statement filed by Amicus Curiae Professor Adam Rothman in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 05/28/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 06/17/2025 10:01 AM]Disclosure Statement | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF tendered by Service Employees International Union. [25-1169, 25-1170] (SU) [Entered: 06/17/2025 03:03 PM]Amicus Curiae Brief (FRAP 29) | 38 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| CASE calendared: This case is presently scheduled to be called for oral argument on Friday, August 1, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Boston, MA in the Panel Courtroom at the Moakley Courthouse, 7th Floor. There will be no continuance except for grave cause. Designation form due 07/01/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (DJT) [Entered: 06/17/2025 10:49 AM]Calendaring Notice | 5 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| DISCLOSURE statement filed by Amici Curiae HarborCOV, ASISTA, The Tahirih Justice Center (“Tahirih”) and NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS SERVING IMMIGRANT SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 05/28/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 06/17/2025 09:32 AM]Disclosure Statement | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| DISCLOSURE statement filed by Amici Curiae Kristin A. Collins, Gerald L. Neuman and Rachel E. Rosenbloom in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 05/28/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 06/17/2025 09:52 AM]Disclosure Statement | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| DISCLOSURE statement filed by Amicus Curiae Secure Families Initiative in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 05/28/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 06/17/2025 10:04 AM]Disclosure Statement | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| DISCLOSURE statement filed by Amici Curiae American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, Communications Workers of America, National Education Association, SEIU, United Farm Workers of America and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 06/17/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 06/17/2025 03:57 PM]Disclosure Statement | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| DESIGNATION of attorney presenting oral argument filed by Attorney Oren McCleary Sellstrom for Appellees Brazilian Worker Center, O. Doe and La Colaborativa. Served on 06/24/2025. [25-1169] (OMS) [Entered: 06/24/2025 02:50 PM]Designation of Attorney Presenting Oral Argument | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| DESIGNATION of attorney presenting oral argument filed by Attorney Eric Dean McArthur for Appellants Frank J. Bisignano, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State and US Social Security Administration in 25-1169, Attorney Eric Dean McArthur for Appellants Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, DHS, Kristi Noem, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., US Social Security Administration, Frank J. Bisignano and US in 25-1170. Served on 06/24/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (EDM) [Entered: 06/24/2025 04:08 PM]Designation of Attorney Presenting Oral Argument | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| LETTER regarding Supreme Court's Stay Opinion and Next Steps (copy of letter filed in D. Mass.) filed by Attorney Viviana Maria Hanley for Appellee State of New Jersey in 25-1170. Served on 06/30/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (VMH) [Entered: 06/30/2025 04:04 PM]Copy of Letter Filed in D. Mass. re Supreme Ct. Stay Op. | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER filed by Appellants Frank J. Bisignano, DHS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Kristi Noem, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Health and Human Services, US, US Department of State and US Social Security Administration in 25-1170, Appellants Frank J. Bisignano, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State and US Social Security Administration in 25-1169. Served on 07/01/2025. [25-1170, 25-1169] (DW) [Entered: 07/01/2025 12:41 PM] | 6 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| ORDER entered. Defendants-appellants have filed an Opposed Motion for Supplemental Briefing Order (the "Motion") in connection with New Jersey v. Trump, No. 25-1170. The plaintiffs-appellees in No. 25-1170 are directed to respond to the Motion no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 2, 2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (GB) [Entered: 07/02/2025 04:11 AM]Clerk Order | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| RESPONSE filed by Appellees City and County of San Francisco, CA, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Dana Nessel, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of North Carolina, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont and State of Wisconsin in 25-1170 to motion [6732690-2], order [6732914-2], order [6732914-3]. Served on 07/02/2025. [25-1170, 25-1169] (VMH) [Entered: 07/02/2025 10:40 AM] | 14 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| REPLY filed by Appellants Frank J. Bisignano, DHS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Kristi Noem, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Health and Human Services, US, US Department of State and US Social Security Administration in 25-1170, Appellants Frank J. Bisignano, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State and US Social Security Administration in 25-1169 to response [6732984-2]. Served on 07/02/2025. [25-1170, 25-1169] (DW) [Entered: 07/02/2025 05:10 PM] | 5 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| LETTER regarding scheduling order entered by the District of Massachusetts filed by Attorney Viviana Maria Hanley for Appellee State of New Jersey in 25-1170. Served on 07/02/2025. [25-1170, 25-1169] (VMH) [Entered: 07/02/2025 02:08 PM] | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| ORDER entered by David J. Barron, Chief Appellate Judge; Julie Rikelman, Appellate Judge and Seth Robert Aframe, Appellate Judge: The defendants-appellants have filed a Motion for Supplemental Briefing Order (the "Motion") to this court in connection with New Jersey v. Trump, No. 25-1170. That case involves the defendants-appellants' appeal of a February 13, 2025 order by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court's order granted a "universal" preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14,160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025). That appeal is pending in this court, and oral argument is scheduled in this court on August 1, 2025. The Motion asks us to order supplemental briefing on the effect of the United States Supreme Court's order in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. __ (2025), on this appeal to "allow this Court to 'move expeditiously to ensure that . . . the injunctio[n] comport[s] with' the Supreme Court's decision." They propose a schedule in which the supplemental briefs "would be due on July 11" so that "[t]he Court would then be positioned to rule on whether the nationwide injunction is broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, an issue this Court declined to consider in initially ruling on the government's stay motion." They further assert that "adopting this course would comport with the Supreme Court's instruction that the lower courts should 'move expeditiously' to resolve outstanding issues about the scope of the injunction." The plaintiffs-appellees oppose the Motion. In urging us to grant the Motion, the defendants-appellants state that "[i]f the district court’s existing decision is insufficient to establish" that the universal injunction entered in this case comports with the complete-relief principle and other principles of equity, "then the universal scope of that injunction is appropriately stayed." There is no motion, however, pending before this court for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction on appeal in No. 25-1170, which injunction the defendants-appellants appear to agree is not stayed at present. To be sure, on February 27, 2025, the defendants-appellants did file a motion in our court to stay the injunction, as they note in the Motion. But we denied the stay and, in the opinion doing so, we declined to address the "narrower relief" proposed by the defendants-appellants in their stay motion to this court because they had failed to raise it in opposing the grant of a nationwide preliminary injunction in the preliminary injunction proceedings themselves or in requesting a stay of that injunction from the District Court. Moreover, CASA provides fresh guidance regarding the equitable powers of federal courts. See CASA, 606 U.S. at __, slip op. at 17-18. Thus, in aid of our consideration of the issues on appeal, and consistent with the Supreme Court's instruction that "[t]he lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate" and "move expeditiously" to ensure that the injunction comports with the "principles of equity" described in CASA, id. slip op. at 19, 26 (emphasis added), we conclude that it is prudent to remand to the District Court, while retaining our jurisdiction over the appeal. The remand is for the limited purpose of enabling the District Court to consider the bearing, if any, of that guidance in CASA on the scope of the preliminary injunction in No. 25-1170 and to act accordingly. In doing so, we expect the District Court to address any arguments that the parties may advance with respect to what grounds may now be asserted regarding the injunction's scope. For these reasons, the Motion is denied, and the matter is remanded to the District Court for the limited purposes described herein, with this court retaining jurisdiction. We understand the District Court will act promptly in accordance with the briefing schedule that it entered on July 2, 2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 07/03/2025 04:09 PM]Main Document | 4 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| PLEADING tendered: Statement in Lieu of Oral Argument filed by Interested Party Mark Marvin in 25-1170, Appellant in 25-1200. Certificate of service was not included. [25-1169, 25-1170, 25-1200] (AL) [Entered: 07/17/2025 03:13 PM]Pleading Tendered | 3 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| PLEADING tendered: Designation Form filed by Interested Party Mark Marvin in 25-1170. Certificate of service was not included. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 07/17/2025 02:57 PM]Pleading Tendered | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| MOTION for Attorney Whitney D. Hermandorfer to withdraw as counsel filed by Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 07/15/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (WDH) [Entered: 07/15/2025 07:20 AM]Hermandorfer MTW | 5 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| ORDER entered: Upon consideration, the motion to withdraw Attorney Whitney Hermandorfer as counsel for Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee is granted. Attorney Hermandorfer is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record, and Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee will continue to be represented by the remaining counsel of record.. [25-1169, 25-1170] (DO) [Entered: 07/18/2025 04:02 PM]Clerk Order | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| OPINION issued by David J. Barron, Chief Appellate Judge; Julie Rikelman, Appellate Judge and Seth Robert Aframe, Appellate Judge. Published. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 10/03/2025 04:24 PM]Main Document | 100 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| JUDGMENT entered: The District Court's order for entry of the preliminary injunctions is affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the matter is remanded for further consideration consistent with the decision issued this day. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 10/03/2025 04:32 PM]Main Document | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| ERRATA issued by court to opinion (published) [6755439-2]. [25-1169, 25-1170] (SBT) [Entered: 11/14/2025 03:44 PM]Errata to Opinion | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| MANDATE issued. [25-1169, 25-1170] (GB) [Entered: 11/25/2025 07:58 AM]Mandate | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| U.S. SUPREME COURT ORDER entered. The application for an extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari was granted. [25-1169, 25-1170, 25-1348] (AL) [Entered: 12/29/2025 06:15 PM]Supreme Court Order (General) | 3 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| U.S. SUPREME COURT NOTICE advising a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on 01/30/2026 and assigned case number 25-899. [25-1169, 25-1170, 25-1348] (AL) [Entered: 02/02/2026 05:28 PM]Petition for Writ of Certiorari | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| MOTION for Attorney Hannah Bartlett to withdraw as counsel filed by Amicus Curiae Adam Rothman in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 03/25/2026. [25-1169, 25-1170] (HB) [Entered: 03/25/2026 12:39 PM]Motion (other) | 5 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| ORDER entered: Upon consideration, the motion to withdraw Attorney Hannah Bartlett as counsel for Amicus Curiae Adam Rothman is granted. Attorney Bartlett is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record, and Amicus Curiae Adam Rothman will continue to be represented by the remaining counsel of record. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 03/25/2026 04:51 PM]Main Document | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| MOTION requesting leave for Attorney Madeline W. Clark to enter an appearance filed by Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 05/06/2026. [25-1169, 25-1170] (MC) [Entered: 05/06/2026 12:37 PM]Motion for Leave to File Notice of Appearance | 5 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| NOTICE of appearance filed by Attorney Madeline Clark for Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 05/06/2025. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 05/07/2026 04:26 PM]Notice of Appearance Form | 1 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| ORDER entered: Upon consideration, Attorney Madeline W. Clark's motion for leave to enter an appearance on behalf of Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee is granted. Attorney Clark's notice of appearance is accepted for filing as of this date. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 05/07/2026 04:23 PM]Main Document | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| MOTION for Attorney James Matthew Rice to withdraw as counsel filed by Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee in 25-1169, 25-1170. Served on 05/09/2026. [25-1169, 25-1170] (JMR) [Entered: 05/09/2026 03:46 PM]Motion (other) | 5 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external | ||
| ORDER entered: Upon consideration, the motion to withdraw Attorney James Matthew Rice as counsel for Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee is granted. Attorney Rice is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record, and Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee will continue to be represented by the remaining counsel of record. [25-1169, 25-1170] (AL) [Entered: 05/11/2026 04:13 PM]Main Document | 2 | View here · Original(opens another site)PDF, external |