On June 24, 2026, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a protective order allowing 30 plaintiffs to shield their real names from the public record. The decision marks the first procedural victory for a group of Afghan nationals trying to challenge a sweeping immigration freeze without exposing their relatives to retaliation back home.
The case involves six unrelated Afghan men who successfully obtained asylum in the United States in 2023. After securing their status, the men applied for Form I-730 “Asylee Relative Petitions” to bring their immediate families—a collective group of 24 wives and children—to join them in Colorado.
Although the families completed their required consular interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, their travel authorizations were abruptly blocked by executive policy.
During the first year of the current administration, the President issued two executive orders—Proclamation No. 10949 in June 2025 and Proclamation No. 10998 in December 2025—which fully suspended entry into the U.S. from 20 different countries, including Afghanistan.
Following those orders, the State Department issued a series of internal “cables” directing consular officers to enforce the ban and tightly restrict the distribution of National Interest Exceptions. Instead of receiving travel documents, the families were handed letters declaring them ineligible to enter the United States.
In response, the families filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Department of State under the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit alleges that the administration’s internal cables amount to an illegal, nationality-based entry ban.
Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the policy is arbitrary, exceeds statutory authority, violates the State Department’s own rules for evaluating cases individually, and bypassed mandatory public notice-and-comment periods. They also allege that the government has unreasonably delayed the final processing of their petitions.
Because 16 of the 24 family members stranded abroad are minor children, and because of the volatile political climate in Afghanistan, the plaintiffs petitioned the court to proceed under pseudonyms. Chief Judge Boasberg ruled that the families met the heavy legal burden required to bypass the standard rule of public disclosure, noting that their safety concerns were valid and deeply sensitive.
In the court’s memorandum opinion, Chief Judge Boasberg highlighted the specific dangers the families face under the current regime, writing that the plaintiffs:
“…express fear of Taliban policies restricting women’s rights and conscripting young men, and ‘fear [of] any further retribution should their names be tied to a lawsuit seeking to leave Afghanistan.'”
The judge also pointed out that one of the families belongs to a targeted racial and religious minority group currently facing documented ethnic cleansing in the region.
To determine whether anonymity was justified, the court weighed the public’s right to open judicial proceedings against the family’s safety by utilizing a standard five-factor balancing test. The court’s analysis fell heavily in favor of the plaintiffs based on several core facts:
- Severe Personal Risk: The request to hide their names is based on a documented fear of physical retaliation and human rights abuses, not a simple desire to avoid public criticism.
- Protection of Minors: Unmasking the adult parents would automatically expose the identities of the 16 minor children named in the lawsuit.
- No Unfairness to the Government: Because the lawsuit names public officials rather than private citizens, there is little risk of unfair prejudice. Furthermore, the State Department already knows the true identities of the plaintiffs, meaning the government’s ability to prepare a legal defense is not hindered.
Under the terms of the court order, all parties are strictly prohibited from disclosing the plaintiffs’ real names to any third party unless it becomes absolutely necessary to defend the case. Chief Judge Boasberg has given the plaintiffs 14 days to submit a redacted version of their filings for the public record, along with a separate, heavily secured declaration containing their real names and addresses for the court’s eyes only. The underlying lawsuit will now move forward to a randomly assigned U.S. District Judge to decide whether the State Department’s entry ban is legally permissible.
READ: Epstein’s Brainstorming: Bill Gates Details Hidden Affairs And Blackmail Plots In House Testimony
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
