John D. Bates

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this case, plaintiff Lincoln Maharaj challenged the denial of his 2017 Form I-526 petition under the EB-5 immigrant investor program by seeking judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act after USCIS denied the petition in 2025. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022, which requires exhaustion of administrative appeals before federal court review. The court agreed, holding that the Act's jurisdictional exhaustion provision applies prospectively to claims where the agency determination occurred after the law's effective date, rather than the earlier petition filing date. Because Maharaj had not appealed the denial to USCIS's Administrative Appeals Office, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

immigrationprocedure

The case is a False Claims Act qui tam suit brought by relator Rosemarie Dow against litigation support companies HC2, Inc. and PAE Labat-Anderson, LLC, alleging violations on behalf of the United States. After the government declined to intervene and Dow's counsel withdrew, the court ruled that she could not proceed pro se and granted multiple extensions for her to retain new counsel. When she failed to do so after nine months, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court also granted in part and denied in part Dow's motion to unseal the record, ordering most documents unsealed but keeping one subcontract under seal.

procedurecriminal law

Pardis Tabaee, a non-U.S. resident living in Italy who conducted part-time research affiliated with NASA, sued the agency and one of its employees alleging employment discrimination and retaliation after she was denied a full-time postdoctoral position, as well as tort claims including intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, plus claims for misappropriation of intellectual property and breach of contract. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint in full. Most claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because constitutional protections and certain tort remedies do not extend to noncitizens outside U.S. territory, the Federal Tort Claims Act bars claims against individual employees, and contract claims exceeding $10,000 fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims; the remaining claims were dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. The court also denied the plaintiff's motions for recusal and additional relief.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

The case involves Zena Alsanabani suing private military contractors, banks including First Abu Dhabi Bank, and associated individuals for the death of her brother in Yemen, which she alleges resulted from actions by UAE-supported groups funded through the defendants. The court granted First Abu Dhabi Bank's motion to dismiss all claims against it. The Anti-Terrorism Act claims were dismissed without prejudice because the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to establish proximate causation of the death, the bank's culpable intent for aiding-and-abetting liability, or an agreement for conspiracy liability. The Torture Victim Protection Act claim was dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the statute provides a cause of action only against natural persons, not corporations.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance sued President Trump and other federal officials over the termination of a federal grant program aimed at expanding broadband access to underserved communities. The government moved to dismiss the case on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and an argument that the program unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of race. NDIA sought a stay of proceedings pending the D.C. Circuit's en banc decision in a related case, Climate United Fund v. Citibank, arguing it could clarify jurisdictional and impoundment issues. The court denied the stay, reasoning that the government's independent constitutional argument would likely require resolution regardless of the other case, that overlap with Climate United was speculative and limited, and that NDIA had not demonstrated sufficient hardship to justify delaying the litigation.

federal powerprocedurecivil rights

Two animal welfare organizations sued each other over claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unfair trade practices after one rebranded and allegedly used confusingly similar logos and terms. The court addressed the plaintiff's partial motion to dismiss four of the defendant's counterclaims for lack of jurisdiction, standing, and failure to state a claim. It denied dismissal of the counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff lacks exclusive rights in the term “humane society,” finding an actual controversy because the term was at issue in the plaintiff's infringement claims. The court also denied dismissal of the unfair competition counterclaims, as the defendant alleged monetary harm from the plaintiff's alleged passing off. However, it granted dismissal of the abuse of process counterclaim without prejudice because the defendant failed to allege any improper acts beyond the normal course of litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Fajardo Campos, a federal prisoner convicted by jury of conspiracy to import cocaine and methamphetamine moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her 22-year sentence, claiming ineffective assistance by both trial and appellate counsel, while alternatively requesting an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel. The district court denied all relief, finding that the record conclusively demonstrated neither deficient performance by counsel nor resulting prejudice under the Strickland standard, and that the claims were too vague or speculative to warrant a hearing or further discovery. The court also rejected the request for counsel, noting no constitutional right to it in this collateral proceeding and that the interests of justice did not require appointment given the conclusive record. The opinion emphasizes that the motion was timely filed after direct appeal affirmance and that pro se filings are liberally construed, but still fail to meet the required showing.

criminal lawprocedure

In this FOIA case, the law firm Husch Blackwell sought disclosure of documents from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security regarding the final proposal to add two foreign companies, YMTC and YMTJ, to the export restrictions list. After an initial opinion requiring more detail from the agency, the court reviewed supplemental briefs and declarations explaining the withholdings. The court concluded that one document was properly withheld under FOIA exemption 1 due to national security risks from disclosure, while eight memoranda and their copies or drafts were properly withheld under exemption 3 because they contained information obtained during BIS investigations, as authorized by the Export Control Reform Act. The court therefore granted the agency's renewed motion for summary judgment, finding the exemptions satisfied.

business & regulatoryfederal power

Jace Yarbrough, a U.S. Air Force Reserve major, sued General B. Chance Saltzman in his individual capacity under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) after receiving a letter of admonishment for delivering a political speech in uniform at a retirement event. Yarbrough claimed that the admonishment, which enforced regulations against political activity in uniform, substantially burdened his religious exercise by preventing him from fulfilling a duty to 'speak truth.' The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted Saltzman's motion to dismiss, holding that the regulation did not impose a substantial burden because Yarbrough's broadly stated religious obligation could be satisfied through many alternative means that did not involve political expression while in uniform. The court noted that RFRA prohibits only government actions that force a person to violate their beliefs or prevent required conduct, and here the policy merely limited one method of expression without negating the underlying duty.

religious libertyfree speechcivil rights

This case involves claims by Afghanistan-based plaintiffs, including four in-utero individuals, against the Islamic Republic of Iran for damages arising from attacks. After previously awarding compensatory damages to the in-utero plaintiffs and punitive damages to other plaintiffs, the court addressed a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a) and 60(b) to add punitive damages for the four omitted plaintiffs. The court denied relief under Rule 60(a) because adding punitive damages would alter the merits of the judgment rather than correct a clerical error. However, it granted the motion under Rule 60(b)(1), finding the omission resulted from mistake or excusable neglect given the recent determination of the in-utero plaintiffs' standing, and that the motion was timely; the court thus modified the judgment to award specific punitive damages amounts to K.E.F.V., A.M.P., S.G.C.H., and C.L.K. and entered final judgment on those claims.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Mighty Earth, a nonprofit environmental organization, suing JBS USA Food Company under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act for allegedly making false or misleading claims about the environmental sustainability of its meat products, such as a net-zero emissions goal by 2040. Mighty Earth brought the suit in D.C. Superior Court on behalf of D.C. consumers without claiming any direct injury to itself. JBS removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, but both parties agreed that Mighty Earth lacked Article III standing due to the absence of an injury in fact. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case to D.C. Superior Court rather than dismissing it, reasoning that D.C. law permits such representative actions by public interest organizations without requiring Article III standing, while federal courts are limited to cases or controversies under Article III.

environmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a defendant serving supervised release following a federal conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine who was later convicted in Maryland state court of negligent manslaughter arising from a hit-and-run incident. The defendant moved for pretrial release from custody under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) pending a final hearing on revocation of his supervised release. The court denied the motion, holding that the defendant had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he posed neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. In applying the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the court emphasized the seriousness of the new offense, the defendant's prior convictions for assault and drug crimes, his history of unauthorized driving, and his prior illegal reentry after deportation.

criminal lawprocedureimmigration

In United States v. Parker, the defendant faced federal charges including sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 and related offenses involving transportation for prostitution. Parker moved to suppress evidence obtained from two cell phones seized during his arrest in Arizona, arguing the seizures and searches violated the Fourth Amendment, and moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming fabricated evidence, improper venue in the District of Columbia, and withheld exculpatory material. The district court denied both motions. It held that the initial seizure of the phones and car key was lawful incident to arrest, the continued retention was supported by probable cause based on the victim's statements about sex trafficking, and the searches were authorized by warrants; venue was proper because the charged statutes define continuing offenses and the indictment alleged relevant conduct in D.C.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Parker, the defendant is charged with multiple sex trafficking offenses in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The government filed pretrial motions in limine seeking to bar evidence of victims' sexual histories and certain prior convictions, to exclude irrelevant or prejudicial material, and to admit evidence of the defendant's scheme, other acts, and records; Parker opposed only the restrictions on victims' histories. The court granted the motions in part, denied them in part, and deferred some rulings, allowing impeachment with recent felony convictions but barring older ones or most arrests, prohibiting evidence of victims' other sexual behavior absent a proper Rule 412 motion, and permitting the government to introduce pattern evidence, prior law-enforcement contacts, and business records while excluding prior convictions for impeachment. These decisions rest on the Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 412, 609, 404(b), and 403, along with the need to balance probative value against unfair prejudice and the defendant's constitutional rights to present a defense.

criminal lawprocedure