⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The D.C. Circuit considers years-long delays in special immigrant visa applications from Afghan and Iraqi allies. These programs offer a route to resettlement for people whose work supporting the United States exposed them to serious threats. The applicants who brought this lawsuit said they had served the United States, faced danger because of that work, and waited years without final decisions. They sued the State Department and Homeland Security in 2018, seeking decisions for themselves and a larger group of applicants. A district judge found unreasonable delay in 2019 and required a plan to move applications through the process. After further litigation, the judge adopted a revised plan in 2025, retaining processing benchmarks and progress reports. The government is now appealing. Importantly, ordering a decision is not the same as ordering a visa to be approved. Applicants still have to establish eligibility and pass the required screening. Congress set a nine-month processing benchmark, while allowing extra time for high-risk cases requiring additional national-security review. The government's lawyer will argue that different applicants' circumstances and security checks make this class-wide remedy inappropriate. She will also challenge the plan's practical demands after the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the closure of the embassy in Kabul. The applicants' lawyer will argue that a shared processing failure warrants a shared remedy, and that the plan has enough flexibility for genuine security concerns. Listen for how the judges distinguish a decision on an application from continued administrative processing, and how they weigh individual security review against years of waiting.

Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Marco Rubio (No. 25-5279) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 6, 2026.