On Sept. 10, 2026, the government filed a notice of appeal in CLINIC v. Rubio, No. 1:26-cv-00858-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 98, taking the Aug. 24, 2026 judgment — a partial judgment entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), since other claims in the case remain pending — to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. When that notice was filed, no motion for a stay pending appeal had been made and no stay had been entered anywhere; the current posture is set out below.
Separately, in opposing the plaintiffs' Aug. 28 motion to enforce the judgment, the government argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) automatically stayed proceedings to enforce it for 30 days after entry, through Sept. 23, 2026 — an argument about pausing enforcement steps, not about undoing the underlying ruling, which the State Department has told the court it treats as "fully operative." The court did not accept that as a reason to withhold relief: on Aug. 31 it granted the plaintiffs' motion in part anyway, so enforcement has not, as a practical matter, been paused through Sept. 23.
In its Aug. 28 filing the Department confirmed that its Bureau of Consular Affairs "is rescheduling immigrant-visa appointments" — to allow time to coordinate guidance implementing the ruling and to account for "updated procedures in applying the public-charge ground of inadmissibility." The government described that as temporary rescheduling through Aug. 31. The plaintiffs argued in reply that both the scope and that end date were overstated, that it did not appear in the Department's sworn declaration, and that appointments scheduled after Aug. 31 were also canceled.
On Aug. 31 the court granted the plaintiffs' emergency motion to enforce its judgment in part and ordered a status report. The Department filed it on Sept. 8: more than 43,000 immigrant visa applications are subject to the court's vacatur and remand, the Department has rescheduled many immigrant visa appointments globally through September 2026 as part of a training initiative and to identify affected cases, and there is "no fixed date by which reconsideration of all affected applications will be completed" — cases will move on a rolling basis, and individual applicants may be asked for updated documents, an updated medical exam, or an additional interview.
Developments since then. On Sept. 14, 2026, the Department filed a motion to stay the Aug. 24 judgment pending appeal, ECF No. 100, asking in the alternative that the court at least stay the portions of the judgment setting aside the refusals based solely on the January 14, 2026 policy and remanding them, or — at minimum — stay that relief as it reaches applicants who are not parties to the case. Its supporting brief is careful about the present tense: "Defendants recognize that the Judgment is fully operative and are complying with it," it says, while treating the January 14 guidance as "no longer operative," and it states that "[t]his motion seeks prospective relief."
The appeal itself was docketed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Sept. 15, 2026 as No. 26-2573. Update as of Oct. 19, 2026: the court heard argument on Oct. 14 on whether to set a deadline for deciding the remanded applications and has not yet ruled. On Oct. 19, 2026 a single judge of the Second Circuit temporarily stayed the part of the judgment that vacated individual immigrant-visa refusals based solely on the January 14, 2026 policy and sent them back for reconsideration, while a three-judge panel decides the government’s stay motion (No. 26-2573, order of Oct. 19, 2026). The court declined to stay the declaratory judgment or the vacatur of the policy itself. This is an interim order and could change quickly.
If an immigrant visa interview was canceled or moved, that is not a denial and not necessarily permanent — confirm your appointment directly with the consulate, and talk to us before changing travel plans or filing anything in response.