Beryl Alaine Howell

In this consolidated case, professional associations representing nurse practitioners, physician assistants, therapists, public health workers, and educators sued the Department of Education, challenging a May 2026 final rule that amended the regulatory definition of "professional degree" for federal graduate student loan purposes and imposed an imminent July 1, 2026 effective date. The court granted plaintiffs' request for a stay under APA Section 705 of the new regulatory definition (including added requirements like free-from-supervision), concluding they were likely to succeed on the merits of at least one APA claim and that defendants would not suffer irreparable harm, but denied requests to enjoin the statutory loan caps or to affirmatively order the Department to treat certain degrees like physician assistant programs as "professional." The core reasoning emphasized the procedural distinctions between a Section 705 stay and a preliminary injunction under Rule 65, the absence of a bond requirement for stays of agency action, and the need to preserve the status quo pending full judicial review of the rule's compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

business & regulatoryfederal powerhealthcareprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Jose Eliezer Martinez-Andino, a Honduran immigrant with no criminal history, who alleged that immigration authorities detained him, moved him between multiple facilities without allowing contact with counsel, and removed him to Honduras based on an allegedly unknowing and involuntary agreement to depart. Plaintiff claimed these actions violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, the APA, and ICE regulations by denying him access to counsel and proper process before removal, and he sought mandamus relief to facilitate his return, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief, including a TRO. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the APA claim, a claim under 8 C.F.R. § 292.5, and one defendant, while allowing Fifth Amendment and related claims to proceed. It granted the TRO in part, ordering defendants to facilitate plaintiff's return to the United States for proper processing of his immigration case, based on a likelihood of success on the due process claims showing that the removal resulted from violations of plaintiff's rights to counsel and process, but denied other requested relief as moot or beyond the court's authority.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves three plaintiffs employed as security officers by United American Security, LLC (doing business as GardaWorld) who alleged that the company violated the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law by failing to timely pay minimum wages and fringe benefits. The consolidated actions included multiple pending motions: defendant's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim in both cases, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on one count, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, defendant's motions to strike certain exhibits, and plaintiffs' motion for sanctions arising from defendant's denied motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel. The court denied the motion to dismiss in Merritt, granted the motion to dismiss in part (as to three counts) and denied it in part (as to two counts) in Chang, denied partial summary judgment, denied class certification without prejudice as premature, denied the motions to strike as moot, and granted sanctions, ordering defense counsel and the firm to reimburse plaintiffs $172,635.10 in attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for the meritless and tactically timed disqualification motion.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves nonprofit organizations challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture's termination of several federal grants under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging both improper terminations of their specific grants and a broader agency policy of mass terminations driven by executive orders that conflict with statutory mandates. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction halting the terminations of the plaintiffs' grants and now addresses the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the administrative record, which defendants had limited to individualized reviews rather than any agency-wide policy. The court granted the motion in part, ordering supplementation of the record and limited discovery, while denying sanctions at this stage. It reasoned that the full record must cover the policy-based claims to allow proper judicial review, emphasizing that executive agencies must comply with congressional statutes and appropriations when terminating grants, not solely with current executive priorities. The decision rejects efforts to limit the record in a way that could undermine the broader challenge.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In these consolidated cases, plaintiff Lindsay Olson, a jury consultant, sued multiple defense attorneys and their law firms for copyright infringement after they downloaded her April 2022 jury-attitude report from a public docket and attached it to venue-transfer motions filed for January 6 criminal defendants, without her permission. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motions, holding that the complaints alleged plausible infringement claims based on the unauthorized reproduction and use of the report, even though it had been publicly filed and statutory damages were unavailable due to lack of timely registration.

criminal lawproperty

In this case, immigration attorneys and individuals sued Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that CBP maintained a policy or practice of violating FOIA by failing to process requests for travel and immigration records within the required 30 business days. Plaintiffs sought class certification for all persons with overdue FOIA requests to CBP and opposed the agency's motion for summary judgment, while requesting discovery. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, denied class certification as moot, and denied the discovery motion. The court reasoned that CBP's declarations demonstrated substantial increases in FOIA workload as an exceptional circumstance justifying delays, that the agency had taken diligent steps to improve processing, and that no evidence showed a pattern of noncompliance beyond ordinary operations.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

In this case, nonprofit Global Reach, Inc. sued for-profit Hawkwood Group LLC and its managing member Robert Kent for common-law tortious interference with business relations, alleging that defendants' communications and actions were undermining plaintiff's contract with the fiancée of a U.S. citizen detained in Guinea to secure his release. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order directing defendants to cease interfering with the engagement and denied defendant Kent's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court found that the factual allegations and supporting declarations established a likelihood of success on the interference claim and that the defendants had sufficient contacts with the District of Columbia to support jurisdiction and venue.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiffs, including noncitizens and an immigrant advocacy organization, challenging a policy and practice by the Department of Homeland Security and related federal agencies of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District of Columbia without the probable cause determinations required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction on December 2, 2025, barring such arrests absent a finding that the individual was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained. Plaintiffs then moved to enforce that injunction, arguing that defendants continued the unlawful practices, including through a January 2026 Lyons Memo providing guidance to ICE personnel. The court granted the motion to enforce, ruling that defendants' narrow definition of escape risk and failure to direct agents to consider community ties violated the injunction. The court also granted plaintiffs' motion for extra-record discovery to further examine the scope of the challenged policy and practice.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

In this case, defendant Pedro Alejandro Rubio-Perez, who had been convicted of conspiring to distribute large quantities of cocaine and marijuana and was serving a 180-month sentence, moved for compassionate release under the First Step Act, citing his serious medical conditions, the Bureau of Prisons' failure to provide interpreters for medical appointments, and the risks posed by subsequent immigration detention. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion, ordering his prompt release from BOP custody. The court found that the combination of the defendant's health issues, limited English proficiency affecting his medical care, the short time remaining on his sentence, his voluntary exit from criminal activity years before arrest, and the low risk of danger to the community constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and aligned with the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

criminal lawimmigrationhealthcare

The case involved third-party petitioners, family members of victims of a 2019 Juárez Cartel massacre in Mexico, who held a multi-billion-dollar civil judgment and sought to attach assets forfeited in this criminal case against defendant Gutierrez-Ochoa, a member of a different cartel who pleaded guilty to money laundering. Petitioners filed an ancillary petition invoking Section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act to claim the forfeited currency, vehicles, property, and other assets, arguing for broad enforcement rights notwithstanding other laws. The government moved to dismiss, and the court granted the motion, holding that petitioners' theory was an overreach unsupported by statute or precedent and that 21 U.S.C. § 853(k) precludes such attachment attempts outside the statutory forfeiture hearing process under § 853(n).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Nicholas R. Ochs, a Proud Boys member convicted after pleading guilty to obstructing an official proceeding for conduct during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack; he had paid part of his ordered restitution, criminal fine, and special assessment before receiving a presidential pardon and then sought their return. The district court denied the unopposed motion for refund of the amounts already deposited in the U.S. Treasury. The court reasoned that neither constitutional principles nor statutes such as 31 U.S.C. § 1322 authorize repayment of funds paid pursuant to a conviction later affected by pardon, that analogies to abatement ab initio do not apply where no direct appeal was pending, and that vacatur of the conviction does not retroactively require disgorgement by the government of collected amounts.

criminal lawprocedure

Dr. Mahendra Amin, an OB/GYN who treated ICE detainees, sued Taylor & Francis Group and related defendants for defamation after they published two paragraphs in a 2024 handbook chapter recounting 2020 allegations that he performed hysterectomies without consent on detained immigrant women. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the statements were non-actionable opinions because they were supported by a Senate subcommittee report finding a lack of informed consent and excessive procedures by the plaintiff, along with other investigations that did not fully corroborate or refute the core claims. The opinion emphasized that cherry-picked excerpts from reports did not render the published statements false or defamatory.

immigrationcivil rightsfree speechtorts & liability

In this federal criminal case, defendant Edgar Fabian Villasenor Garcia, a Mexican lawyer, pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute large quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine knowing they would be imported into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 959, 960, 963 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; he was sentenced to 250 months' imprisonment after the government dismissed a related firearm count. Eight months later, the defendant filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in multiple respects. The district court denied the motion, finding that the defendant's claims were contradicted by his own signed acknowledgments in the plea agreement and stipulated facts, as well as his statements under oath at the change-of-plea hearing confirming that no promises had been made about his sentence and that he understood the agreement's terms. The court noted that the defendant, a well-educated criminal lawyer, had initialed and signed the documents after review with counsel and repeatedly affirmed the voluntariness of his plea.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project's FOIA and Privacy Act request to the FBI for records related to the 1992 murder conviction of Kenneth Copeland, whom the plaintiff believes was wrongly convicted. The FBI released some documents with redactions and withheld others, relying on multiple exemptions, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment on the propriety of those withholdings. The court granted the defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, specifically upholding withholdings under Exemption 7(D) for confidential sources while denying summary judgment on other exemptions like 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(F) due to the need for further clarification. Plaintiff's cross-motion and request for in camera review were denied as premature, with the parties directed to propose a schedule for resolving remaining issues. The decision focused on whether the FBI properly justified its withholdings under the applicable statutes without conducting additional review at this stage.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involves investigative journalist Jason Leopold seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Chief of the United States Capitol Police to disclose certain policy directives in effect on January 6, 2021, under the common law right of access to public records, as FOIA does not apply to the legislative branch. The court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. It granted the motion in part, dismissing the claim regarding Directive 1000.002, but denied it as to the remaining 100 directives, finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a ministerial duty to release segregable non-security information after balancing interests. The reasoning centered on the scope of the common law right of access to legislative records, the requirements for mandamus relief, and the application of a balancing test similar to that in Washington Legal Foundation cases.

procedurefederal power

The case involves a federal criminal prosecution of defendant Keith Moore for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as a felon in possession of a semi-automatic firearm, with trial scheduled for February 2026; the government's theory relies on constructive possession based on evidence recovered from a vehicle, including DNA linking Moore to the gun. The sole unresolved pretrial issue was the government's motion in limine to preclude or limit the defense's cross-examination of six police officer witnesses regarding pending investigations or prior sustained incidents. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, permitting limited questioning of three officers about their knowledge of ongoing investigations and potential penalties, as well as one specific incident involving a fourth officer, while barring cross-examination on other incidents. The reasoning centered on Federal Rules of Evidence 608 (impeachment by specific instances affecting truthfulness or bias) and 403 (balancing probative value against risks of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay), allowing inquiry only where it directly bears on credibility without creating a trial-within-a-trial.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved eight Brazilian plaintiffs who alleged they were trafficked and forced to work on coffee farms in Brazil, filing a putative class action in the District of Columbia against Starbucks under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, Brazilian law, and common-law claims of unjust enrichment and negligent supervision. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over Starbucks. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs' injuries, which occurred in Brazil at the hands of Brazilian actors, did not arise out of or relate to Starbucks's coffee sales or marketing activities in the District of Columbia, and merely conducting regular sales of a product in a forum cannot confer specific jurisdiction over unrelated claims under Supreme Court precedent such as Bristol-Myers and Ford Motor Co.

procedurelabor & employmentcriminal law

Plaintiff International Rights Advocates, Inc. sued Nestlé USA, Inc. in D.C. Superior Court under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, alleging that Nestlé's advertisements falsely claimed its cocoa products were free of child and forced labor. Nestlé removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction on the ground that the cost of complying with the requested injunctive relief plus attorneys' fees would exceed $75,000. The district court held that the non-aggregation principle applies to representative CPPA actions brought in the public interest, requiring the projected compliance costs to be divided among D.C. residents rather than counted in full, and therefore the amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied. The court granted the motion to remand the case to Superior Court, following its recent decision in a nearly identical case against Mars, Inc., but denied the plaintiff's request for fees and costs incurred in litigating the remand motion.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves defendant Calvin Sumler's second pro se motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, filed in connection with his 1990s convictions for leading a crack cocaine distribution organization that used violence against rivals. The government opposed the motion on grounds that Sumler had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting his request to the Bureau of Prisons warden. The court denied the motion, concluding that the exhaustion requirement, though nonjurisdictional, had not been satisfied, the government had timely raised the issue, and the defendant had shown no good cause, futility, or other equitable circumstances to excuse compliance.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a putative class action brought by seven former employees of the Department of Health and Human Services and its components who were terminated in April 2025 as part of a department-wide reorganization and reduction in force. The plaintiffs allege that the terminations were based on inaccurate personnel records, in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, and they seek damages and declaratory relief against HHS, ACF, FDA, CDC, OMB, OPM, DOGE, and various agency officials in their official capacities. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion as to the agency defendants, finding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged claims under Privacy Act provisions 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(1)(C) and (g)(1)(D) by showing adverse determinations caused by intentional or willful failures to maintain accurate records. The court granted the motion as to the individual defendants, dismissing the claims against them because suits against officials in their official capacities are redundant when the agencies themselves are also named as defendants.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure