The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

Free Speech

No Pseudonymity for Most Challengers of Visa Vetting Policy

Eugene Volokh | 5.28.2026 10:50 AM

From Doe v. U.S. Dep't of State, decided yesterday by Chief Judge James Boasberg (D.D.C.):

Plaintiffs are 49 U.S. visa applicants. Their applications were suspended under a January 2026 State Department policy that indefinitely pauses visa issuances for nationals of 75 countries. The Department presents the policy as part of an ongoing review of visa-vetting procedures, asserting that nationals of the designated countries "are at a high risk for becoming a public charge," and are therefore inadmissible under 8 U.S.C § 1182(a)(4). Plaintiffs contend that this policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act by authorizing categorical visa denials based solely on applicant nationality.

They seek adjudication of their individual applications, as well as declarations that the policy is ultra vires and violates the Administrative Procedure Act, vacatur of the policy, and an injunction barring its enforcement….

The question at this point is whether plaintiffs can proceed pseudonymously, and the court says most can't:

At this stage, one Plaintiff has succeeded in demonstrating that her privacy and safety interests outweigh the public's presumptive and substantial interest in learning her identity. The remaining Plaintiffs fall short.

Jamaican Plaintiff Michelle Doe ("M. Doe") states that disclosure could enable her physically abusive ex-spouse to locate her and her children. Plaintiff Anastasiia Doe ("A. Doe"), a Russian national residing in Russia, alleges a risk of retaliation stemming from her documented U.S. ties. The remaining Plaintiffs, who hail from various countries, generally invoke emotional, reputational, employment, and pecuniary risks….

This Court has credited concrete safety threats as concerns that exceed "the annoyance and criticism that may attend litigation" and implicate "matter[s] of [a] sensitive and personal nature." Here, M. Doe alleges that her ex-spouse has a history of physical violence and "will use any information … to try to track [her] down." Her family thus does not publicly release "anything personal about [them]selves." … At this early stage, … the Court finds [M.Doe's] claims........

© Reason.com