Plaintiffs Seek Emergency Enforcement of 2026 Diversity Visa Court Order
Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over the federal government’s handling of the fiscal 2026 Diversity Visa program filed an emergency motion Tuesday seeking to enforce a court order that temporarily vacated policies pausing visa processing for affected applicants.
The motion, filed Sept. 8 in Medani v. Trump and consolidated cases before U.S. Senior District Judge Edward J. Davila, alleges that the State Department has not resumed normal processing despite the court’s Aug. 28 preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs said the department has canceled or indefinitely postponed previously scheduled September interviews and has not issued visas to applicants whose cases were paused under the challenged policies.
Davila’s Aug. 28 order temporarily vacated three policies affecting fiscal 2026 Diversity Visa selectees: a USCIS hold on adjustment-of-status cases, a State Department pause on Diversity Visa issuance and a nationality-based “75-Country Pause.”
The order directed the State Department, “to the extent practicable and in good faith,” to take reasonable steps during the remainder of the fiscal year to reconsider applications refused solely under the two State Department policies and resume ordinary adjudication.
Diversity Visas for fiscal 2026 generally must be issued by Sept. 30. Applicants who have not received their visas by then can lose eligibility under the program’s annual statutory deadline, leaving affected applicants only a limited period to complete processing.
Alleged Continued Suspension
The plaintiffs’ filing says State Department posts have continued to treat the program as suspended despite Davila’s order.
According to the motion, an immigrant visa unit in Taiwan told a named plaintiff Sept. 1 that “the suspension of the DV-2026 program continues” and that administrative processing remained paused pending further instructions. The plaintiffs also cited several applicants whose September interview appointments were canceled, postponed without replacement dates or otherwise disrupted.
The filing identifies one applicant who had already been interviewed and whose refusal allegedly was based solely on the Diversity Visa pause. Plaintiffs said the applicant completed a new medical examination and attempted to submit a passport at the U.S. Embassy in London for visa issuance, but embassy staff declined to accept it and said immigrant visa processing would remain closed for at least two weeks.
The plaintiffs argue that withholding or canceling interviews effectively continues the policies the court enjoined because an interview is required before a consular officer can complete visa adjudication. The motion does not seek an order requiring visas for applicants who are independently ineligible. Instead, plaintiffs are asking the government to resume processing without the challenged pauses.
Plaintiffs Seek Expedited Deadlines
The emergency motion asks Davila to require the government to immediately comply with the Aug. 28 order and distribute it within 24 hours to State Department personnel, consular posts, the National Visa Center and contractors involved in immigrant visa interviews.
Among other requests, the plaintiffs are asking the court to reinstate September interviews that were canceled or postponed because of the Diversity Visa or 75-Country Pause. They also want the government to schedule and complete necessary interviews for affected class members within three days.
The plaintiffs are further asking the court to require the government to reconsider applications that were refused solely under the challenged policies and issue visas within seven days to applicants who are otherwise eligible. They also want the government to stop refusing passports and other documents submitted to complete visa issuance.
In addition, the plaintiffs are asking the government to submit a detailed written status report within three days and participate in an expedited status conference.
The plaintiffs also ask the court to clarify that the government cannot satisfy its obligations simply by denying or refusing visas under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows a president to suspend the entry of certain noncitizens. The motion argues that such a proclamation addresses entry into the United States rather than visa issuance itself.
Government Response Pending
The motion says plaintiffs’ attorneys notified government counsel Sept. 4 that they intended to seek enforcement. Government counsel replied Sept. 6 that they were communicating with the relevant agencies and preferred that the plaintiffs file Tuesday, according to the filing. Plaintiffs said they had received no further response when the motion was filed.
A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 10 at 9 a.m. in San Jose. Plaintiffs said their attorneys were available for an earlier hearing because of the approaching fiscal-year deadline.
The case comes as the clock runs down on the fiscal 2026 Diversity Visa program. The court’s Aug. 28 order provides relief while the litigation continues, but it does not guarantee a visa to any individual applicant. Applicants must still satisfy the program’s eligibility and processing requirements, and visa availability remains subject to the statutory Sept. 30 deadline.