District Court, District of Columbia — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Kingdom v. Trump
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-06-17
The case involves federal inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria challenging the Bureau of Prisons' Program Statement 5260.01, which implements Executive Order 14168 by imposing a near-total ban on gender-affirming care such as hormone therapy and surgery, providing only psychotherapy and medication instead. Plaintiffs moved to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order and Program Statement and to stay the policy during litigation. The court granted the motion with a modification to the injunction's scope, finding that the BOP did not follow required administrative procedures when issuing the new policy.
criminal lawhealthcarecivil rightsfederal power
United States v. Olson
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-06-15
In United States v. Olson, defendant Erlend Olson faced charges of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, multiple counts of wire and mail fraud, and tax evasion stemming from an alleged scheme to defraud about 200 investors and lenders of over $250 million. The district court denied Olson's motion to reconsider its earlier pretrial detention order, rejecting his request for an evidentiary hearing based on claimed new health information. The court determined that the original grounds for detention as a flight risk remained unchanged, including Olson's substantial sentencing exposure, efforts to conceal funds and evade taxes, significant foreign ties with dual citizenship in a non-extradition country, and an attempt to tamper with a witness during the case. Applying the Bail Reform Act, the court concluded that no conditions of release would reasonably assure Olson's appearance at trial.
criminal lawprocedure
Doe v. McHenry
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-06-07
The case involves transgender women in federal Bureau of Prisons custody who challenged their potential transfer to men's facilities, claiming it would violate the Eighth Amendment due to their particular vulnerabilities from long-term hormone therapy, surgeries, and prior histories of sexual assault or self-harm. On appeal, the Circuit Court acknowledged evidence of distinctive risks but held that deliberate indifference could not be found without individualized assessments of each plaintiff's specific circumstances rather than general characteristics. It remanded for factual findings on the features of the Doe plaintiffs in particular that would render transfer unconstitutional. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a new motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction supported by individualized evidence.
civil rightscriminal law
United States v. Scurry
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-05-08
In United States v. Scurry, defendant Eric Scurry filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his convictions for drug conspiracy and money laundering, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in the lead-up to trial and during plea negotiations with the government. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, holding that Scurry could not prove he was prejudiced by his counsel's performance. The court reasoned that the government's case was strong, the plea agreement provided relatively favorable terms compared to the sentence Scurry likely would have faced after trial, and there was no reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea or achieved a better outcome.
criminal lawprocedure
Scollick v. Narula
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-04-27
This case is a qui tam False Claims Act lawsuit alleging that defendants submitted false claims for payments under the Department of Veterans Affairs service-disabled veteran-owned small business contract set-aside program. After the parties reached a settlement agreement that received DOJ approval, the OST Defendants refused to sign, citing changed business conditions from new executive orders affecting government contracting. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement, ruling that a binding agreement existed and that the impracticability defense failed because government actions did not prohibit performance by law and financial hardship does not excuse contractual obligations. The court denied sanctions, finding the defendants' position, though unsuccessful, was not taken in bad faith.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Lewis v. United States Parole Commission
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-03-31
This case concerns allegations by D.C. parolees that the U.S. Parole Commission failed to schedule required early termination hearings after five years of parole supervision, in violation of D.C. Code provisions. Plaintiffs sought class certification for similarly situated individuals, and the Commission moved to dismiss, arguing that recent agency reforms had resolved the issue going forward. The court granted class certification after discovery revealed that nearly 90% of termination hearings had been overdue in recent years, with at least five active class members and ongoing deficiencies in the Commission's hearing system. It denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the reforms were not sufficiently permanent or effective to eliminate the likelihood of future violations or render the class insufficiently numerous. The decision turned on Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity requirements and evidence that the class would persist due to the agency's past and continuing statutory noncompliance.
criminal lawprocedure