January 31, 2026

Nomination Of Kevin Warsh For Fed Chair, Update On Lawsuits Against Kristi Noem, and Celebrating American Greatness With INDYCAR 2026

By S.E. Gunn, PhD - All News Pipeline

On January 26, 2026, the White House published the article Wide Acclaim for President Trump’s Nomination of Kevin Warsh as Fed Chair noting that Mr. Warsh has a distinguished background (with degrees from both Stanford University and Harvard Law School) of service to the US. He has served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; Executive Secretary of the White House National Economic Council; and as a Member of Mergers and Acquisitions Department at Morgan Stanley, VP and Executive Director. At 35 years of age, he is the youngest Fed Governor in the Fed's history. He has served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; as the Board of Governor's representative to the G-20 and as the Board's Emissary to Emerging and Advanced Economies in Asia; and as Board of Governors Administrative Governor. His nomination has received praise from lawmakers (which, to some of us, makes his nomination questionable), business leaders, financial experts, and industry. 

LAWFARE lawsuit tracker to date:

• 228 active cases
• 21 suits filed by the Trump Administration
• 18 SCOTUS stays or motions to vacate of lower court orders
• 1 SCOTUS affirmation of lower court order
• 8 suits where judges ruled for the federal government
• 9 suits where judges ruled against the federal government
• 6 criminal prosecutions by the DOJ: 
• Representative McIver, 
• former FBI Director James Comey, dismissed without prejudice 11/24/2025,
• former National Security Advisor John Bolton, 
• (illegal alien) Kilmar Abrego Garcia, ordered released 12/11/2025;
• New York AG Letitia A James, dismissed without prejudice 11/24/2025,
• Congressional candidate Katherine Abughazaleh

Here are 8 lawsuits (2 new and 6 updated) filed by the loony left against Kristi Noem:

A new lawsuit, Hussen v. Noem docket # 0:26-cv-00324 was filed in District Court, D. Minnesota on January 15, 2026 about Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

1. Certify the Stops Class, Warrantless Arrest Class, Equal Protection Subclass, Removability Subclass, and Flight Risk Subclass as described above, and appoint Mr. Hussein, Mr. Eydarus, and Javier Doe as class representatives;
2. Appoint undersigned counsel as class counsel;
3. Declare that Defendants’ policy and practice of stopping Somali and Latino individuals to investigate immigration status without reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the United States in violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of noncitizens violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
4. Declare that Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without a pre-arrest, individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is in the United States in violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of noncitizens violates 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii), and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
5. Declare that Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without a pre-arrest, individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained violates 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii);
6. Declare that Defendants’ policy and practice of stopping, interrogating, detaining, holding, and arresting individuals based on a belief that such persons are Somali or Latino violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
7. With respect to the Stops Class, enjoin Defendants from stopping individuals without a valid individualized determination by the agent making the stop of reasonable suspicion that the person being stopped has committed an offense against the United States in the presence of the agent making the stop, a felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, or a violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(5), 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(2), and/or the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
8. With respect to the Warrantless Arrest Class and Removability Subclass, enjoin Defendants from enforcing their policy and practice of making warrantless civil immigration arrests in the State of Minnesota without a valid pre-arrest individualized determination by the arresting agent of probable cause that the person being arrested is in the United States in violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii);
9. With respect to the Warrantless Arrest Class and Flight Risk Subclass, enjoin Defendants from enforcing their policy and practice of making warrantless civil immigration arrests in the State of Minnesota without a valid pre-arrest individualized determination by the arresting agent of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii);
10. With respect to the Equal Protection Subclass, enjoin Defendants from stopping, interrogating, detaining, holding, or arresting individuals based on a belief that such persons are Somali or Latino, as prohibited by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
11. Vacate and set aside Defendants’ policy and practice of stopping Somali and Latino individuals to investigate immigration status without reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the United States in violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of noncitizens violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
12. Vacate and set aside Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without a valid pre-arrest, individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is in the United States in violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of noncitizens violates 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii), and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
13. Vacate and set aside Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without a valid pre-arrest, individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained violates 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii);
14. Order Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them to expunge, subject to the documentation and production requirement set forth above, at a time and in a manner agreed upon with Plaintiffs, all records collected and maintained about Plaintiffs and class members from their unlawful stops and arrests, including any derivative information;
15. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and any other applicable source of law; and
16. Award such further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

Someone needs to explain to these loony left lawyers and activist judges that the ONLY rules that apply to those in our country illegally are US Immigration Laws. Since they are here illegally, and violate our laws while they remain in our country illegally, our US Constitution does not apply to them.

In the lawsuit, County of Santa Clara v. Noem docket # 5:25-cv-08330 was filed in District Court, N.D. California on September 30, 2025 about Federal Grant Conditioning. The original lawsuit sought the following relief:

1. A declaration that the Discrimination Condition and the EO Condition are unconstitutional, are not authorized by statute, violate the APA, and are otherwise unlawful;
2. A declaration that Defendants’ attachment or incorporation of the Discrimination Condition, the EO Condition, and the Challenged Grant Manual Disclosure Requirements to Plaintiffs’ grant funding is unconstitutional, is not authorized by statute, violates the APA, and is otherwise unlawful;
3. A declaration that Defendants’ attachment or incorporation of the Immigration Conditions and Sanctuary Certification Condition to Plaintiffs’ grant funding under the Subject Grant Programs is unconstitutional, is not authorized by statute, violates the APA, and is otherwise unlawful;
4. An order temporarily restraining, and preliminarily and permanently enjoining, Defendants from attaching, incorporating, imposing, or enforcing:
1. a. the Discrimination Condition, the EO Condition, the Challenged Grant Manual Disclosure Requirements, or any materially similar terms or
2. conditions, with respect to any applications submitted by Plaintiffs, and any funds awarded to or received by Plaintiffs, whether directly or indirectly;
3. b. the Immigration Conditions and Sanctuary Certification Condition, or any materially similar terms or conditions, with respect to any applications
4. submitted by Plaintiffs, and any funds awarded to or received by Plaintiffs, whether directly or indirectly, under the Subject Grant Programs;
5. c. any interpretation of the Civil Rights Conditions as requiring anything other than compliance with the statutes cited in the Civil Rights Conditions as they have been enacted by Congress and interpreted by the judiciary.
5. An order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705 that postpones the effective date of any action by any Defendants to adopt, issue, or enforce the Discrimination Condition, EO Condition, and Challenged Grants Manual Disclosure Requirements pending conclusion of this litigation; declares the Challenged DHS Conditions, Sanctuary Certification Condition, and Challenged Grants Manual Disclosure Requirements void and unenforceable with respect to any application, award, agreement, or other document executed by Plaintiffs that is related to the Subject Grant Programs; and declares that the Civil Rights Conditions require compliance with the statutes cited therein as those statutes have been enacted by Congress and interpreted by the judiciary;
6. An order under 5 U.S.C. § 706 holding unlawful, setting aside, and vacating all actions taken by Defendants to:
1. a. adopt, issue, or implement the Discrimination Condition, the EO Condition, or the Challenged Grant Manual Disclosure Requirements;
2. b. require, attach, incorporate, implement, or enforce the Discrimination Condition, EO Condition, or Challenged Grant Manual Disclosure Requirements with respect to any grant application, agreement or subagreement, or other document, transaction, or activity, executed by Plaintiffs, or funding received by Plaintiffs;
3. c. require, attach, incorporate, implement, or enforce the Immigration Conditions or the Sanctuary Certification Condition with respect to any grant application, agreement or subagreement, or other document, transaction, or activity, executed by Plaintiffs, or funding received by Plaintiffs, under the Subject Grant Programs;
4. d. construe the Civil Rights Conditions to require anything other than compliance with the statutes cited in the Civil Rights Conditions as they have been enacted by Congress and interpreted by the judiciary.
7. Orders preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from retaliating against any Plaintiff for participating in this lawsuit or taking any adverse action based on any Plaintiff’s participation in this lawsuit, including but not limited to reducing the amount of a grant award to that Plaintiff or to any state agency through which Plaintiff may receive grant funding; refusing to issue, process, sign, or approve grant applications, grant agreements, or subgrant agreements; and refusing to issue, process, sign, or approve any invoice or request for payment, or reducing the amount of such approval or payment;
8. An award to Plaintiffs of their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses; and;
9. Any other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.

On November 21, 2025, Judge William H Orrick ordered a Preliminary Injunction (PI):

1. Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them ARE RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition funds from the plaintiffs based on (1) Section C.XVII of the Standard DHS Terms (the “Discrimination Condition”); and (2) Section C.XXXI of the Standard DHS Terms (the “EO Condition”).
2. This Order shall apply to the maximum extent provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706.

On January 20, 2026 the PI was appealed by Defendant.

In the lawsuit, D.A. v. Noem docket # 1:25-cv-03135 was filed in District Court, District of Columbia on September 11, 2025 about Removal to 3rd country because the illegals fear the 3rd country will deport them to their home country. The original lawsuit sought the following relief:

1. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
2. Immediately enjoin Defendants from removing—or facilitating, enabling, or encouraging the removal—of Plaintiffs to their countries of origin;
3. Declare that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights by facilitating their removal to their countries of origin;
4. Declare that Defendants had, and have, a mandatory duty to provide Plaintiffs with meaningful notice and opportunity to present a fear-based claim to an immigration judge prior to deportation to Ghana;
5. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from failing to provide Plaintiffs with written notice and a meaningful opportunity to present a fear-based claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and/or under the Convention Against Torture to an immigration judge prior to deportation to Ghana;
6. Order Defendants to immediately facilitate the return of Plaintiffs to the United States and provide them with written notice and a meaningful opportunity to present a fear-based claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and/or under the Convention Against Torture to an immigration judge prior to any effort to again deport them to Ghana;
7. Enjoin Defendants from relying on or using Ghana as a transit hub in removal proceedings pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2);
8. Award costs and reasonable attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
9. Order all other relief that the Court deems just and proper

On January 21, 2026 this suit was dismissed by plaintiffs.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs D.A., T.L., I.O., D.S., and K.S. hereby voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned case. Because Defendants have not served an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action, dismissal without prejudice is warranted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).

In the lawsuit, Tincher v. Noem docket # 0:25-cv-04669 was filed in District Court, D. Minnesota on December 17, 2025 about Operation Metro Surge by ICE. The original lawsuit sought the following relief:

1. A determination that this action may proceed as a class action under Rule 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. Designation of Plaintiffs as Class Representative and designation of Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel;
3. A declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the federal actions described in this complaint constitute violations of the First and Fourth Amendments;
4. A permanent injunction barring Defendants from engaging in unconstitutional conduct and retaliation against class members.
5. Immediate expungement of any and all records created by Defendants about Plaintiffs during the course of “Operation Metro Surge”;
6. An award of such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
7. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On January 16, 2026, Judge Katherine Menendez ordered:

1. This order applies to individual Plaintiffs and to all persons who do or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest Operation Metro Surge and related operations that have been ongoing in this District since December 4, 2025.
2. This Injunction applies to Defendants and their officers and agents operating in the District of Minnesota to conduct immigration enforcement activities as part of Operation Metro Surge. It also applies to Defendants and their officers and agents responding to protests that arise in response to Operation Metro Surge. (Hereinafter “Covered Federal Agents.”) This Injunction does not apply to Defendants and their officers and agents otherwise conducting routine operations within the District of Minnesota.
3. Covered Federal Agents are hereby enjoined from:
1. Retaliating against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge.
2. Arresting or detaining persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct and absent a showing of probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime or is obstructing or interfering with the activities of Covered Federal Officers.
3. Using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct.
4. Stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they are forcibly obstructing or interfering with Covered Federal Agents, or otherwise violating 18 U.S.C. § 111. The act of safely following Covered Federal Agents at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop.
4. Dissemination of this Order
1. The Defendants must widely disseminate notice of this Order to all Covered Federal Agents, including providing copies in paper or electronic format.
2. The Order must be distributed to all Covered Federal Agents and all Defendants within 72 hours of its issuance.
3. The Order must be distributed to all newly deployed Covered Federal Agents that arrive in Minnesota to take part in Operation Metro Surge.
5. This Order shall remain in effect until Operation Metro Surge concludes or the conditions change such that it is no longer necessary. If any party believes that the surge has come to an end or that the injunction is no longer necessary, they may file a motion for its termination.
6. Either party may seek to modify this Order by filing a motion with the Court.

On January 21, 2026 the PI was appealed:

The motion for an administrative stay of the preliminary injunction issued by the district court pending the Court’s consideration of the Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal is granted.

In the lawsuit, Tincher v. Noem docket # 26-1105 Appeal of 0:25-cv-04669 was filed in Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on January 20, 2026 about Operation Metro Surge appealing Judge Menendez's order granting a preliminary injunction to plaintiff (see above for docket # 0:25-cv-04669).

On January 26, 2026 a stay was granted with the following conditions:

1. Appellants’ brief and appendix are due February 6, 2026.
2. Appellees’ brief is due February 17, 2026.
3. Appellants’ reply brief is due February 24, 2026.

In the lawsuit, Chicago Headline Club v., Noem docket # 1:25-cv-12173 was filed in District Court, N.D. Illinois on October 6, 2025 about the National Guard Deployment. The original lawsuit sought the following relief:

1. A declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the federal actions described in this complaint restrain Plaintiffs’ ability to assemble, peacefully protest, pray, and gather news, in violation of the First Amendment;
2. A declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the federal actions described in this complaint constitute a federal unlawful policy of using excessive and retaliatory force, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments;
3. A declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the federal actions described in this complaint present an imminent threat that Plaintiffs will have excessive and retaliatory force used on them, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments;
4. A declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the federal actions described in this complaint constitute a federal unlawful policy of committing arrests without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment;
5. A declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the federal actions described in this complaint present an imminent threat that Plaintiffs will be arrested without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment;
6. An order vacating and setting aside Defendants’ unlawful policies and final agency actions of suppressing disfavored speech, retaliation, interference with free exercise of religion, excessive force, and policing and defending federal property beyond the lawful authority of the federal officials, 5 U.S.C. § 706; and
7. An injunction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 702, permanently enjoining the Defendants from engaging in the unlawful actions described in this complaint, and specifically prohibiting Defendants, their officers, agents, assigns, and all persons acting in concert with them from:
1. Dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime unrelated to failing to obey a dispersal order. Defendants may ask a Journalist to change location to avoid disrupting law enforcement, as long as the instructions are clear and the press have time to comply and sufficient opportunity to report and observe;
2. Issuing a dispersal order requiring any person to leave a public place that they lawfully have a right to be, unless dispersal is justified by a commanding officer’s finding of a serious threat to public safety;
3. Using riot control weapons––including but not limited to kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs), Pepper ball or paintball guns, pepper or OC spray, tear gas or other chemical irritants, soft nose rounds, 40 or 37mm launchers, less lethal shotguns, and flashbang, Stinger, or rubber-ball grenades––on members of the press, protesters, or religious practitioners who are not themselves posing a threat of imminent physical harm to a law enforcement officer or another person;
4. Using riot control weapons (including those described above) at identified targets, if doing so could foreseeably result in injury to the press, protesters, or religious practitioners who are not posing a threat of imminent physical harm to a law enforcement officer or another person, unless such force is necessary to stop an immediate and serious threat of physical harm to a person;
5. Firing large riot control weapons––including but not limited to tear gas canisters, flashbang, Stinger grenades, or rubber-ball grenades––so as to strike any person, including by deploying these weapons above the head of the crowd, unless the person poses an imminent threat of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person in equivalent circumstances to those where the officer is authorized to use deadly force;
6. Firing projectile riot control weapons––including but not limited to KIPs, pepper balls, paintballs, and soft nose rounds––at the head, neck, groin, torso, or other sensitive areas of any person, or striking any person with a vehicle, unless that person poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to a law enforcement officer or another person;
7. Using force, such as pulling or shoving a person to the ground, tackling, body slamming, or kettling on individual(s) who pose no immediate threat of physical harm to others, unless necessary and proportional to effectuate an apprehension and arrest;
8. Using any riot control weapon without giving at least two separate warnings in a manner and at a sound level where it can be heard by the targeted individual(s), unless the threat of physical harm is so serious and imminent that a warning is infeasible. Such warnings shall explain that Defendants may employ riot control weapons, give the targeted individual(s) sufficient time to avoid the use of force, and leave room and opportunity for safe egress. If it appears that the intended audience was unable to hear the warnings, the warning must be repeated prior to the use of riot control weapons;
9. Seizing or arresting any non-violent protester who is not resisting a lawful dispersal order, unless there is specific probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime for which a custodial arrest is warranted and for which the federal agent has lawful authority to make an arrest;
8. An injunction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 702, permanently enjoining the Defendants from engaging in the unlawful actions described in this complaint, and specifically requiring Defendants, their officers, agents, assigns, and all persons acting in concert with them to have visible identification (name and/or badge number) affixed to their uniforms and prominently displayed, including when wearing riot gear; and
9. Any other relief this Court deems proper

On January 22, 2026, Judge Sara L Ellis granted the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss:

It is hereby ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated. 

The Plaintiffs did not state why they wanted to dismiss their case. As far as I am concerned, Law Enforcement should have the right to respond to violent protestors (people who throw things, hit Law Enforcement, attempt to run Law Enforcement over with their vehicle, etc.) with lethal force.

A new lawsuit, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension v. Noem docket # 0:26-cv-00628 was filed in District Court, D. Minnesota on January 24, 2026 about the shooting of Alex Pretti saying DHS denied state & local law enforcement access to evidence relating to the shooting. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

1. Declare that Defendants’ ongoing denial of Plaintiffs’ access to evidence relevant to the fatal shooting on January 24, 2026, is unconstitutional and unlawful;
2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from destroying, altering, or concealing any such evidence;
3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from continuing to deny Plaintiffs access to any such evidence;
4. Award the Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
5. Order such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

As we have seen from recent news report, Alex Pretti is not the "saint" the loony left claim him to be. Of course, the activist judges in Minnesota will find for the Plaintiffs; however, in the long run, Federal law holds over State law. And Federal incidents are investigated at the Federal level.

In the lawsuit, Doe v. Noem docket # 1:25-cv-10495 was filed in District Court, D. Massachusetts on February 28, 2025 about the securing our borders EO (discussed in my June 2, 2025 ANP Article) that paused TPS and CHNV apps. The original lawsuit sought the following relief:

1. Issue a preliminary injunction and/or a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705 in order to restore the status quo ante, under which adjudications for requests for parole and/or re-parole under OAW, U4U, and CHNV, as well as other requests for immigration benefits for individuals paroled through those processes, all resume and continue in the ordinary course.
2. Declare that the U4U, CHNV, and OAW parole processes were and are in accordance with the statutory parole authority, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5);
3. Declare that Defendants’ termination of the U4U, CHNV, and OAW parole processes was contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and violated the constitutional guarantee of due process;
4. Declare that Defendants’ suspension of the adjudication of benefits applications for individuals paroled through these processes was contrary to law, in excess of legal authority, arbitrary and capricious, and violated the constitutional guarantee of due process;
5. Hold unlawful, set aside, and/or otherwise vacate the January 20, 2025 Huffman memorandum; the January Higgins directive; the February 14, 2025 Davidson memorandum; and all DHS actions based thereon, including but not limited to actions terminating the U4U, CHNV, and OAW parole processes; suspending the adjudication of requests for parole and re-parole through those processes; and suspending the adjudication of requests for immigration benefits for individuals paroled through those processes;
6. Enjoin Defendants from applying their erroneous interpretation of the parole statute to individuals paroled into the United States through the U4U, CHNV, and OAW parole processes; and from suspending the adjudication of immigration benefits of individuals paroled through those processes;
7. Award Plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and any other applicable statute or regulation; and
8. Award such other and further relief that the Court may deem just, equitable, and proper.

On January 24, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani granted the PI:

• For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and/or Stay of En Masse Truncation of Family Reunification Parole [Doc. No. 216] is GRANTED as follows:
• The Termination of Family Reunification Parole Processes for Colombians, Cubans, Ecuadorians, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and Salvadorans, 90 Fed. Reg. 58032 (Dec. 15, 2025) is hereby preliminarily ENJOINED under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and STAYED pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705 insofar as it terminates previously granted parole and revokes work authorization issued to noncitizens paroled into the United States pursuant to the FRP Programs prior to the noncitizens’ originally stated parole expiration dates.

I fully expect this to be appealed. TEMPORARY status is just that, temporary. If they are going to be "reunified" with their family, it should happen in their country of origin.

On January 30, 2026, President Trump signed EO Celebrating American Greatness with American Motor Racing recognizing that American INDYCAR racing, with speeds topping over 200 mph, sets the pace for motor sports. This is a source of pride and entertainment for our Nation. President Trump is championing having the first ever INDYCAR race in our Nation's Capital, Washington, DC. 

Section 2 charges the Secretaries of Interior and Transportation to design a route to showcase our Nation's Capital within 14 days of the EO.

Section 3 charges the Secretaries of Interior and Transportation to expedite permits, approvals, and other authorizations to make the Freedom 250 Grand Prix happen. In addition, the Secretary of Transportation will work with the FAA to enable unmanned aerial photography be permitted provided it does not compromise National Security. The Secretary of Transportation will also work with the Mayor of Washington DC to ensure roads, trail, and bridges used as part of the race course are capable of being used in such a manner as well as making sure they are properly maintained.

The accompanying Fact Sheet President Donald J. Trump Celebrates American Greatness with the Freedom 250 Grand Prix of Washington, D.C. explains that the first ever INDYCAR street race in Washington DC will celebrate American greatness while showcasing America's motorsport legacy. This event is part of President Trump's goal to honor our Nation's past while building it's future. 

No dates have yet been provided for when this event will occur.