District Court, District of Columbia — appointed by George W. Bush
Perez Correa Camarena v. Noem
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-06-29
The case involved a Mexican national who filed a Form I-526E petition for an EB-5 investor visa after investing $800,000 in a regional center in a high-unemployment area, seeking to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjudicate his petition after nearly two years of delay. The plaintiff sued under the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act, arguing the delay was unreasonable given Congress's 120-day adjudication goal. The court assumed jurisdiction and a duty to act but dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged unreasonable delay because the agency follows a rule of reason in processing such petitions and relief would improperly allow the plaintiff to jump ahead in line.
immigrationprocedure
Infrared Environmental Infrastructure Gp Limited v. Kingdom of Spain
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-06-22
This case concerns postjudgment discovery in a proceeding to enforce a foreign arbitral award that resulted in a judgment exceeding $47 million against the Kingdom of Spain. Blasket Renewable Investments issued subpoenas to U.S.-based third parties providing services to Spain’s national football team for the 2026 World Cup, seeking broad documents on agreements, communications, and payments involving Spain, its Royal Spanish Football Federation, and team. Spain moved to quash or modify the subpoenas on grounds that they were unduly burdensome and sought irrelevant information not tied to identifying attachable assets. The court granted the motion to modify, holding that the federation and team are not alter egos of Spain and that the subpoenas must be narrowed to seek only relevant information under Rule 69 and Rule 26 standards for postjudgment discovery.
procedure
United States v. Parker
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-06-18
In United States v. Parker, a pro se defendant facing sex trafficking charges and trial in September 2026 challenged his pretrial detention at the D.C. Jail, arguing that the lack of access to legal research tools, discovery materials, and expert consultations violated his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself. The district court ruled that the jail must promptly provide Parker with access to legal research tools, such as tablets or a law library, to enable him to prepare his defense. The court reasoned that while prisoners generally lack an abstract right to a law library, a pretrial detainee exercising Faretta rights shortly before trial has a distinct need for such access that is not outweighed by any legitimate penological interests, distinguishing this from post-conviction contexts under Lewis v. Casey.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
United States v. Parker
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-05-20
In United States v. Parker, defendant Devontee Parker, facing multiple sex trafficking charges, moved for reconsideration of the district court's prior order continuing his trial from March 31, 2026, to September 8, 2026, and excluding the intervening period under the Speedy Trial Act. The court denied the motion, finding that Parker had raised only arguments already considered at the March 13, 2026 status hearing and had offered no new evidence or basis to revisit the ruling. The original continuance was justified under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) because proceeding to trial risked a miscarriage of justice given the volume of unreviewed discovery, the defendant's limited access to materials and counsel, and the case's complexity involving multi-jurisdictional evidence and expert testimony; the Act permits such continuances over a defendant's objection to protect public and systemic interests in a fair trial. The court also declined to order the defendant's transfer from his current detention facility but recommended that the U.S. Marshals Service consider relocating him closer to the District of Columbia to aid trial preparation.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Lemma
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-05-20
This case involves defendant Abraham Teklu Lemma, who was indicted under the Espionage Act for allegedly conspiring to transmit national defense information to Ethiopian government officials while employed by U.S. agencies. The dispute centered on the admissibility of five categories of evidence, including misuse of classified systems, mishandling of information, foreign contacts and dealings, false statements to employers, and passing materials to others. The court denied the defendant's motion to exclude the evidence, ruling that categories such as improper obtaining and retaining of information were intrinsic to the charged offenses, while other evidence like foreign financial dealings and nongovernmental contacts was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent or motive. The court found no Rule 403 issues with the evidence and noted that some contacts with Ethiopian officials were intrinsic as they involved co-conspirators.
criminal lawprocedure
Freedom of the Press Foundation v. Trump
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-05-20
Two sets of plaintiffs, including the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the American Historical Association, sued the Trump administration challenging its assertion that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional and seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce compliance with record preservation requirements. The district court granted the injunction (except as to certain defendants like the President personally), holding that plaintiffs established standing through informational injury from the risk of non-compliance with the Act regarding electronic records, presidential records, and discarded records, and that they had a cause of action to enjoin violations. On the merits, the court found the Act likely constitutional because Congress validly enacted it under the Property Clause to designate and regulate presidential records as federal property and under the Necessary and Proper Clause to promote executive accountability, without impermissibly intruding on presidential authority given decades of compliance. The opinion notes that the President has a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the Act's requirements.
federal powerfree speechproperty