Royce C. Lamberth

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved freelance journalist Jimmy Tobias, who filed nine FOIA requests with the Department of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service seeking documents on topics including wildlife investigations, agency communications, and appointee calendars. After delays in agency responses, Tobias sued, prompting the production of responsive records. The court granted his petition for attorneys' fees and costs. It reasoned that Tobias substantially prevailed in the litigation and that the requested fees, including for fee-related briefing and certain settlement efforts, were reasonable under the applicable standards.

procedureenvironment

This case involves consolidated challenges by plaintiffs including journalists and employees against actions by defendants including Kari Lake to dramatically downsize the U.S. Agency for Global Media and its Voice of America subsidiary in March 2025. The plaintiffs alleged these actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act under 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1) and (2) by failing to adhere to statutory standards for international broadcasting. After addressing threshold issues, the court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for partial summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs prevailed on their APA claims except regarding reinstatement requests by certain contractors. The ruling rested on findings that the downsizing steps did not comply with congressional requirements for agency operations and funding, resulting in vacatur of the challenged actions.

federal powerprocedure

This case addressed whether Defendant Kari Lake has served as acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media in violation of the Appointments Clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act since assuming duties at the agency. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and denied defendants' cross-motion, holding that neither the Vacancies Act nor the Appointments Clause permits her de jure or de facto service in that role. The core reasoning centered on the constitutional requirement of Senate confirmation for principal officers, the Vacancies Act's exclusive procedures for temporary acting officials, and the prohibition on using broad delegations of authority to circumvent those limits, which would otherwise allow Lake to exercise nearly all CEO functions without proper appointment.

federal power

This case involves a FOIA request by journalist Dustin Slaughter to the Department of the Air Force for videos submitted by Air Force personnel regarding unidentified aerial phenomena from March 2022 to April 2023. After an initial denial and appeal, the Air Force located three responsive records but withheld one classified video in full under FOIA Exemption 1. The court found the Air Force's declarations insufficient to determine the adequacy of its searches and ordered supplementation, but granted the government summary judgment on the withholding because the video was properly classified and contained no reasonably segregable non-exempt information. The decision rested on the presumption of compliance with segregability requirements under D.C. Circuit precedent when an agency official attests to a line-by-line review.

procedurefederal power

In Tunsill v. Bessent, plaintiff Kafil Tunsill, appearing pro se as trustee of the Serving Humanity Trust, sued the Secretary of the Treasury alleging failure to redeem Federal Reserve Notes for lawful money under 12 U.S.C. § 411 and related Fifth Amendment and Bivens claims. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiff's motions to amend and for joinder, and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that the claims were frivolous, the complaint failed to state a plausible claim, there is no private right of action under § 411, and the trust could not proceed without licensed counsel.

procedurefederal power

In Shea v. Powell, a white former Foreign Service officer sued the State Department under Title VII, claiming that a 1990s affirmative action hiring plan caused him to enter at a lower level than minority applicants would have; the district court granted summary judgment to the government in 2013, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed in 2015 using the Johnson-Weber framework for affirmative action challenges. Nearly 13 years later, Shea moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate the judgment, citing new 2025 Executive Orders on DEI and the Supreme Court's decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which eliminated the "background circumstances" test for majority-group plaintiffs. The court denied the motion, holding that intervening changes in law or executive policy do not constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for Rule 60(b)(6) relief from a final judgment, especially where the new authorities did not overrule the precedents applied in the original case.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved Vallejo Entertainment LLC's challenge to the Small Business Administration's denial of a Shuttered Venue Operators Grant, which Congress created to aid live venues impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Vallejo applied for funding based on a claimed revenue drop but failed to submit required tax transcripts or one of the SBA's specified alternative verification documents to prove its 2019 gross earned revenue, despite multiple opportunities. The SBA denied the application and upheld the denial on review, finding Vallejo ineligible under the statutory requirements. Vallejo sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging the denial was arbitrary, capricious, involved disparate treatment, and contrary to law. The court granted summary judgment to the SBA, concluding that the agency's decision was reasonable, supported by the record, and did not reflect unequal treatment or violate statutory mandates.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case Evans v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. involved a dispute over whether the plaintiff could assert a common-interest privilege to protect communications with another individual, McDade, regarding discrimination claims against Amtrak. The court decided that Evans had not established the existence of a common-interest agreement, so the privilege did not apply. The core reasoning was that Evans provided only a brief, underdeveloped assertion that she and McDade discussed suing, retained the same counsel, and filed similar charges, without identifying specific evidence of the agreement's existence, terms, or scope.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Murphy, the defendant Christopher Murphy was indicted on two counts of distributing child pornography and one count of receiving child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252, based on allegations that he used Signal and Telegram to share and obtain CSAM materials, including content involving infants, over several months in 2025. The government sought pretrial detention, citing the defendant's alleged prolific distribution, membership in CSAM-sharing groups, and large collection of materials recovered from his devices. After hearings, the district court denied the defendant's motion for release, finding that the statutory presumption of detention applied and was not rebutted. The court reasoned that the serious nature of the charges, the defendant's long-term interest in CSAM, and the inadequacy of proposed conditions like home detention and monitoring created an unmitigable risk to community safety, despite the defendant's lack of prior criminal history and medical career.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns allegations by Open Technology Fund (OTF), a statutorily created grantee entity, that the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) is unlawfully withholding congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the APA, the International Broadcasting Act, and appropriations statutes. OTF claims this prevents it from obligating funds for projects such as censorship circumvention tools and emergency assistance against digital attacks, threatening its statutory mission. The court addressed whether the claims arise from contract or other law and evaluated irreparable harm, noting that statutes require allocation of specified sums to OTF with reprogramming limited to five percent and termination of grants permitted only for noncompliance with statutory purposes. The court agreed that OTF faces an existential funding crisis due to the withholding, with no adequate means of later redress, as operating funds are approved only through November 2025.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns allegations by Open Technology Fund (OTF), a statutorily created grantee entity, that the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) is unlawfully withholding congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the APA, the International Broadcasting Act, and appropriations statutes. OTF claims this prevents it from obligating funds for projects such as censorship circumvention tools and emergency assistance against digital attacks, threatening its statutory mission. The court addressed whether the claims arise from contract or other law and evaluated irreparable harm, noting that statutes require allocation of specified sums to OTF with reprogramming limited to five percent and termination of grants permitted only for noncompliance with statutory purposes. The court agreed that OTF faces an existential funding crisis due to the withholding, with no adequate means of later redress, as operating funds are approved only through November 2025.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

In Jenkins v. Mason Harriman Group, Inc., plaintiff Duane Jenkins, a Virginia resident and former federal employee, sued defendant MHG, a New Jersey consulting firm headquartered in D.C., in diversity jurisdiction for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking $400,000 in damages related to the alleged unauthorized use of his pre-existing cost-management methods (BCPi and TBMx) developed for use with third-party software in task orders for DHS and HHS clients. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted MHG's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the Subcontractor Agreement governed all issues of intellectual property ownership and licensing, making work product during the engagement a work for hire belonging to MHG while allowing only a limited license for pre-existing materials, and that Jenkins could not pursue unjust enrichment because his inconsistent deposition and declaration testimony about disclosing the methods was disregarded under Supreme Court precedent, leaving no genuine issue that MHG had notice of any proprietary claims beyond the contract terms.

business & regulatoryproperty

Plaintiff Duane Jenkins sued defendant Mason Harriman Group, Inc. in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on the defendant's alleged unauthorized use of the plaintiff's proprietary cost-management methods in securing a subcontract with the Small Business Administration. The opinion addresses two pending discovery motions: the plaintiff's motion to compel responses from the defendant and his motion to extend the discovery period to retake the deposition of a third-party witness from the SBA. The court granted the motion to compel in part, ordering the defendant to produce certain documents and allowing a limited additional deposition of one witness, but denied the motion to extend discovery for retaking the SBA deposition because the plaintiff had not shown good cause or diligence. The core reasoning rested on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing timely discovery responses, the scope of proper preparation for third-party depositions, and the need to avoid further delay as the case approached its trial date.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a federal government subcontractor suing the widow of a deceased second-tier subcontractor and his company for fraud, contribution, and indemnification after the subcontractor overbilled on a USPS contract, leading to the plaintiff reimbursing over $900,000 to the prime contractor. The plaintiff filed a late motion to amend its complaint, while the defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds including lack of capacity to be sued as personal representative of the estate. The court denied the motion to amend and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff missed multiple deadlines without justification, and the defendant had properly raised her lack of capacity in the answer under Rule 9(a), as she had never qualified as personal representative.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory