Aysha Irshad v. United States Department of State, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01296
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 AYSHA IRSHAD, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01296-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 12 v. STIPULATING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 13 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Stay, requesting that the Court 17 stay proceedings in this case due to the recent lapse in federal appropriations. Dkt. No. 12. For the 18 reasons explained below, the Court grants the motion. 19 Defendants—the United States Department of State; Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the 20 United States Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan; the United States Attorney for the Western District 21 of Washington; and the United States Attorney General—seek to indefinitely stay proceedings 22 before this Court due to the recent lapse of appropriations to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). 23 Id. at 1. Pro se Plaintiff Aysha Irshad stipulates to this motion. Id. at 1, 5. 24 1 On September 30, 2025, funding expired for the DOJ as well as “many Executive agency 2 clients with whom Department attorneys must coordinate their litigation activities” in this case. Id. 3 The DOJ does not know when such funding will be restored by Congress. Id. at 1–2. Absent an 4 appropriation, certain DOJ attorneys and federal government employees are prohibited from

5 working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, which include 6 “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. 7 Because “the lapse in appropriations requires a reduction in the workforce of the United States 8 Attorney’s Office, particularly with respect to prosecution and defense of civil cases,” the parties 9 seek a stay of proceedings “for the duration of the current lapse of appropriations.” Dkt. No. 12 at 10 2–3. Defendants specifically note that they “will not be able to meet the next deadline” in this 11 case—the October 11, 2025 due date for the parties’ joint status report, Dkt. No. 11—and request 12 that the Court instead order the parties “to confer and file a joint status report within ten days after 13 the restoration of funding.” Dkt. No. 12 at 3. 14 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

15 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 16 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 17 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 18 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 19 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several 20 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 21 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 22 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 23 The CMAX factors weigh in favor of a stay here. Given that “[m]ost Assistant United States

24 Attorneys and support staff in the Civil Division will be furloughed for the duration of the lapse in 1 appropriations and will be unable to perform critical case work,” Dkt. No. 12 at 3, Defendants are 2 unable to perform work essential to ongoing proceedings. Ms. Irshad has agreed to stipulate to a 3 stay, and no party has suggested that any harm would result from a stay. Indeed, “[Ms. Irshad] 4 brought this litigation seeking to compel Defendants to readjudicate her husband’s visa

5 application,” and she now “reports that her husband has received the visa, and she will voluntarily 6 dismiss the case after her husband arrives in the United States.” Id. at 3. Good cause exists for 7 staying the proceedings, including the upcoming joint status report deadline, and the interests of 8 justice and judicial economy will be served by granting this motion. 9 The Court therefore GRANTS the parties’ motion, Dkt. No. 12, and ORDERS that 10 proceedings in this case be stayed while the lapse in federal appropriations continues. Within 10 11 days of the date that funding resumes for the DOJ and other relevant federal agencies, the parties 12 must confer and file a joint status report. 13 Dated this 14th day of October, 2025. 14 A

15 Lauren King United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24