Sajady v. Rubio
MasAti Sajady, formerly known as Masood Sajady v. Marco Rubio, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of State; and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:26-cv-02967
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In MasAti Sajady v. Marco Rubio, Judge Blackwell denied Sajady’s emergency temporary restraining-order motion because neither required factor was shown.
MasAti Sajady was denied immediate emergency relief concerning his passport and related passport actions. The order did not make a final determination about whether the defendants acted lawfully.
What happened
In MasAti Sajady v. Marco Rubio, Sajady alleged that federal officials confiscated his passport at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport before an international flight. He sought an emergency order requiring officials to return the passport, remove his name from passport-related lists, withdraw supporting certification, and provide information about the action.
The court found that the record did not show a likelihood that Sajady would ultimately succeed because it did not explain what decision caused the passport action, who made it, what information was considered, or what authority the defendants had. The court also found no likely immediate harm because the missed trip and lost business opportunities had already occurred, and Sajady identified no imminent travel, deadline, or other event requiring emergency action.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell denied Sajady’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order without Notice. The order addressed only whether immediate emergency relief was justified on the current record; it did not decide whether the passport action was ultimately lawful.
The detailed version
- Sajady v. Rubio · No. 0:26-cv-02967
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- June 18, 2026
Background
MasAti Sajady, formerly known as Masood Sajady, alleged that federal officials confiscated his passport at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport shortly before an international flight. He suggested that the action arose from an ongoing child-support dispute. He sought a temporary restraining order requiring federal officials to return the passport, remove his name from passport denial and revocation lists, withdraw any certification supporting the passport action, and provide information about the action’s basis.
Legal standard
A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary form of emergency relief. To obtain one, the requesting party must show a likelihood of success on the merits and likely irreparable harm without immediate intervention. The court also considers the balance of harms and the public interest.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the current record did not establish a likelihood of success. The filings did not show exactly what determination produced the passport action, who made that determination, what information the decisionmaker had, or what authority either defendant had concerning the determination. The court stated that Sajady might eventually establish that the passport action was improper, but the unanswered questions prevented emergency relief on the record before the court.
The court also held that Sajady had not shown likely irreparable harm. He alleged that he missed an international business trip and lost related business opportunities, but those injuries had already occurred. He identified no imminent travel, impending deadline, or other concrete event requiring immediate intervention before the defendants could respond. He also did not show why ordinary litigation procedures would be inadequate to address the alleged harm.
Disposition
The court denied Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order without Notice, Doc. No. 2. The order did not determine whether the passport action was lawful on the merits; it determined only that Sajady had not shown the requirements for immediate emergency relief on the present record.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.