Red Eagle Law: The Plaintiff’s Statutory Interests Drove the DV-2027 Injunction Stay

The plaintiff’s relationship to the diversity-visa statute determined the result of this emergency appeal. In Red Eagle Law, L.C. v. Rubio, No. 26-6943 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2026), the Ninth Circuit stayed a preliminary injunction that had required the State Department to open DV-2027 registration on specified dates.

The published per curiam order rested on the law firm’s failure to fall within the statute’s zone of interests for an Administrative Procedure Act claim. Judge N. Randy Smith separately concurred on Article III standing grounds. Those are distinct analyses and should remain separate.

A law firm challenged the unopened registration period

Red Eagle Law was the sole plaintiff. Its business included representing diversity-visa selectees, and it challenged the Department’s failure to open the DV-2027 lottery. It had not joined prospective applicants or identified current DV-2027 selectees it represented.

The district court’s October 14 preliminary injunction required an announcement by October 29, registration opening by November 1 and selection notification by December 3. The government sought a stay pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit’s order suspended that injunction’s requirements while the appeal proceeds. Red Eagle Law, order, PDF pages 2–4.

The APA inquiry asked whose interests the statute protects

Under the zone-of-interests analysis, the firm needed an interest arguably protected or regulated by the relevant statutory provisions. Economic consequences from agency action did not, by themselves, establish that relationship.

The order examined the diversity-visa program’s purpose: Facilitating immigration from countries with historically low admission rates. The statute did not address providing business to immigration lawyers. The firm’s anticipated fees from future clients were therefore outside the interests the majority found protected by this statutory scheme. Red Eagle Law, order, PDF pages 3–4.

The comparisons to other immigration cases depended on different statutes

The firm relied on East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, involving organizations assisting asylum applicants. The panel explained that the asylum scheme expressly contemplated access to pro bono legal services under 8 U.S.C. section 1158(d)(4)(A)–(B). That statutory connection distinguished the organizations’ interests there from this firm’s relationship to the diversity program.

The panel also distinguished CSL Plasma Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 33 F.4th 584 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The business-visa provisions there were designed to benefit American businesses; the diversity program’s purpose was encouraging immigration. The firm’s revenue interest lacked that matching statutory purpose. The relevant statutory purpose, rather than the general fact that immigration policy affects a business, drove the comparison.

The concurrence questioned whether the economic injury was concrete

Judge Smith would also find Article III standing absent. His concurrence examined the chain between opening registration and the firm earning fees: Prospective entrants would need selection, pursue the process and choose this firm. The firm had not alleged an actual decrease in revenue from the agency’s inaction; it asserted a lost opportunity for additional downstream income from hypothetical future clients.

That constitutional injury analysis was the concurrence’s additional ground. The per curiam order’s zone-of-interests reasoning addressed the availability of the APA claim under the particular statute. Red Eagle Law, Smith concurrence, PDF pages 5–13.

The operative relief is a stay pending appeal

The government obtained the stay. The order addressed whether this law firm could sustain the preliminary relief on the claim presented; it did not enter a final judgment completing the underlying litigation. The district court’s specified opening dates therefore should not be presented as presently enforceable requirements after the stay.

Our practical guide explains checking the official DV-2027 registration announcement and keeping registration, selection and visa issuance separate. A current applicant needs the operative agency notice and court orders, not an earlier headline alone.