Story · August 15, 2026

Florida judge denies TRO in USCIS delay case brought by 129 Cuban nationals

USCIS delay fight Confidence 4/5
★★★☆☆Fuckup rating 3/5
Major mess Ranked from 1 to 5 stars based on the scale of the screwup and fallout.
Correction: A federal judge denied only the temporary restraining order in this immigration-delay case on July 3, 2026, and set a July 17 deadline for a response on the preliminary-injunction request.
Florida judge denies TRO in USCIS delay case brought by 129 Cuban nationals

A federal judge in Tampa on July 3 declined to grant emergency temporary restraining-order relief in a case brought by 129 Cuban nationals who say U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has unreasonably delayed action on their green card and work permit applications.

The plaintiffs in Acosta Reynoso v. USCIS say they filed Form I-485 applications under the Cuban Adjustment Act and Form I-765 applications for employment authorization, then waited years for decisions. In their motion, they asked the court to bar USCIS from enforcing several policy memoranda and to order the agency to act on the pending applications. The judge denied the TRO request, saying the plaintiffs had not shown that ex parte relief was warranted, that they were likely to win on the merits, or that they faced irreparable harm.

The order does not end the case. It denies only the temporary restraining order and leaves the request for a preliminary injunction alive. The court directed the defendants to respond to that part of the motion by July 17, 2026.

The opinion also points to the procedural and jurisdictional problems with the plaintiffs’ ask. The judge said the requested TRO would function more like permanent relief than a short-lived status-quo order, and noted that the plaintiffs had not shown why emergency relief without fuller briefing was necessary. The court further said it had reservations about whether the challenged USCIS memoranda amounted to final agency action, and whether the court could review the pace of adjudications at all.

The underlying dispute is about delayed immigration-benefits processing, not detention. The plaintiffs say the wait for action on their applications has left them without lawful permanent resident status and, in some cases, without stable work authorization. For now, though, the July 3 order gives them no immediate court-ordered fix; it only keeps the larger injunction fight moving forward on the docket.

Proof attached

Sources used for this report

These are the source links stored with this report when it was published. Open them directly to inspect the underlying reporting or primary document.

Reader action

Follow the court record

Read the filed complaint, order, or opinion and follow the docket as the case develops. Share the primary documents when explaining what the court has—and has not—decided.

This card only appears on stories where there is a concrete, lawful, worthwhile step a reader can actually take.

Comments

Threaded replies, voting, and reports are live. New users still go through screening on their first approved comments.

Log in to comment


No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.