Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

This case concerned the revocation of Herbert Bender’s supervised release based on multiple violations, including an assault on a police officer, failure to report the arrest, repeated controlled substance use, missed treatment, and new criminal conduct involving firearm possession and assault with a dangerous weapon, for which he later pled guilty in D.C. Superior Court and received a 27-month sentence. Magistrate Judge Faruqui, after hearings and review of the record, recommended findings that Bender had violated his release conditions as alleged in the probation petitions and a sentence of 10 months of incarceration to run consecutively to the D.C. sentence, with no additional supervised release, noting that the total would equal 37 months at the high end of the guideline range for a Grade A violation. The magistrate reached this recommendation after considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the defendant’s mixed compliance history, and the parties’ positions. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, as no objections were filed by either party.

criminal lawguns

The case concerned a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to an IRS Notice altering the rules for determining when construction begins on wind and solar projects, which affects eligibility for two clean energy tax credits under sections 45Y and 48E as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The court held that it had jurisdiction over the claims of five of the seven plaintiffs, that the Notice was arbitrary and capricious, and that the proper remedy was to vacate the Notice entirely and remand the matter to the agency. The decision rested on the administrative record showing that the IRS had not adequately explained its departure from over a decade of prior guidance recognizing both the Physical Work Test and the Five Percent Safe Harbor, despite extensive public comments and congressional statements emphasizing reliance on the longstanding standards.

environmenttaxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involves over 300 plaintiffs—U.S. servicemembers injured or killed in Iraq between 2004 and 2011, along with their estates and family members—suing Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for providing material support to proxy groups that carried out attacks, primarily using Iranian-manufactured explosively formed penetrators (EFPs). Following prior rulings that established Iran's liability for bellwether attacks and 73 additional EFP incidents, the court addressed plaintiffs' request for liability findings on 10 more attacks implicating 39 remaining plaintiffs (two injured individuals, two estates, and 35 family members seeking solatium damages), after holding one attack in abeyance due to the D.C. Circuit's Borochov decision limiting jurisdiction over incomplete killings. The court granted default judgment on liability against Iran for these 10 attacks. It reasoned that extensive prior findings of fact on Iran's relationship with proxies like Hezbollah and Iraqi groups, combined with expert reports (particularly from Col. Kevin Lutz) analyzing military records and attack patterns, demonstrated Iran's responsibility under the FSIA, consistent with its earlier template for non-bellwether claims; damages determinations were referred to Special Masters.

federal powertorts & liability

In United States v. Sanchez, defendant Edwin Sanchez, who had pleaded guilty to bank robbery in 2022 and received a 77-month sentence based on a guidelines range of 77-96 months, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction following retroactive Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 821, which lowered his applicable range to 63-78 months by reducing the impact of status points from his prior criminal history. The district court denied the motion. Although Sanchez was eligible for relief, the court concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction, citing his extensive criminal history involving repeated threats and violence, his quick return to crime shortly after a prior release, ongoing public safety concerns despite his good conduct and mental health treatment while incarcerated, and the fact that the original 77-month term remained within the new guidelines range.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a proposed class action by individuals incarcerated in District of Columbia Department of Corrections facilities, who allege that the District provides constitutionally inadequate healthcare. The immediate dispute concerned the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the District’s sealed opposition to class certification, which referenced the protected health information of proposed class representatives and other inmates, on the grounds that the disclosure violated HIPAA. The court denied the motion to strike. It reasoned that the District qualifies as a hybrid entity under HIPAA and may use its own records containing protected health information for litigation purposes as part of its health care operations; the District’s use here was reasonable because the information was directly relevant to the claims, was filed under seal with public redactions, and was accompanied by efforts to limit disclosure to the minimum necessary. The court further directed the parties to propose a protective order to govern the information going forward.

criminal lawhealthcarecivil rightsprocedure

This case involves seven plaintiffs—three injured U.S. servicemembers, one injured civilian, and three family members of deceased servicemembers—who sued Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s state-sponsored terrorism exception for harms from attacks using explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (WBIEDs) linked to Iran and its proxies. After granting default judgment on liability, the court appointed a special master to assess damages and, following supplemental briefing to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction (distinguishing the case from Borochov v. Iran on the presence of extrajudicial killings), reviewed the special master’s report on pain-and-suffering awards for the injured plaintiffs and solatium awards for the family members. The court adopted the special master’s recommended amounts in full, including specific figures such as $7,000,000 for Randall Burns, $7,500,000 for Jason Harrison, $8,250,000 for Steven Juliana, and $6,250,000 for Jonathon Schmidt. The core reasoning was that the report was thorough and well-reasoned, drew on medical records, declarations, and established EFP-damages frameworks (with or without enhancements for hospitalization or permanent impairment), and drew no objections from the plaintiffs.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involves U.S. servicemembers and their heirs suing Iran under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C. § 1605A) for injuries and deaths from attacks in Iraq during the U.S. occupation, alleging that Iran supplied explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) and other improvised explosive devices, along with training, to Shi’a militias. Iran did not appear in the case, leading to entry of default, and plaintiffs moved for default judgment on liability only. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motions as to most plaintiffs, finding subject-matter jurisdiction under the FSIA’s terrorism exception, proper service of process, and that Iran’s established role as a state sponsor of terrorism—including its development and provision of EFPs—supported liability for the attacks. One plaintiff’s claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, while damages were deferred for later determination by a special master. The court relied on factual findings from prior similar cases and expert reports linking the weapons used to Iranian support.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

Shawn Petty, a member of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), sued the union after it ruled him ineligible to run for national office in an upcoming election. Petty had resigned as National Vice President in 2021 following a sexual assault allegation (later deemed consensual by an AFGE trial committee), served a two-year suspension for conduct unbecoming, and then sought to run again in 2024; AFGE blocked his candidacy under its constitution’s requirement that candidates be members in good standing for the prior three years. Petty asked the court for a preliminary injunction ordering AFGE to accept his candidacy and provide voter information. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion, holding that Petty had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm beyond a single conclusory allegation.

electionslabor & employmentprocedure

In this case, defendant Oliver Kellman moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) for reconsideration of a December 2025 order that had denied his earlier requests to quash a third-party subpoena and halt enforcement of a renewed 2009 confessed judgment for $154,000 in favor of plaintiff Smartnet. The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It found that Kellman had not shown any error in the prior determination that service of the 2021 motion to renew the judgment was legally sufficient and did not violate due process, that his medical conditions did not excuse his delay in challenging the judgment, and that a four-year delay in seeking relief was unreasonable and prejudicial to the plaintiff under Rule 60(b)(4). The court noted that the motion improperly sought to relitigate issues already decided and that the judgment had not been dormant when renewed.

procedure

In Rogers v. Del Toro, plaintiff Virgil Rogers, an African American Navy contract specialist working in Bahrain, sued the Secretary of the Navy alleging racial and gender discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The claims arose from a 2015 incident in which Navy personnel allegedly seized and searched his children at a Department of Defense school and later detained him, after which he resigned. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that the suit was untimely filed, that Rogers had failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his discrimination and retaliation claims, and that his retaliation and constructive discharge claims failed as a matter of law because the complaint did not plausibly allege intolerable working conditions or a causal connection to protected activity. The court also denied leave to amend, finding any amendment futile due to the time bar.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved U.S. plaintiffs suing the Federal Republic of Nigeria to enforce payment on ten promissory notes that Nigeria had issued in 2021 as settlement for legal fees arising from a 2013 Nigerian court judgment. Plaintiffs alleged that Nigeria refused to pay the first note when it matured in 2022. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted Nigeria’s motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that Nigeria was immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and the expropriation exception did not apply because the dispute concerned a domestic agreement between Nigeria and a party who had held himself out as a Nigerian national, with all payments to be made in Nigeria under Nigerian law.

federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a supervised release violation by defendant James Cherry after he tested positive for cocaine use. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who held hearings and issued a Report and Recommendation finding that Cherry had relapsed once but was actively participating in drug treatment (now funded by Medicaid), showing progress toward sobriety, and remaining compliant with no new criminal violations. The magistrate recommended a sentence of time served with no further supervision, based on the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), while the government and probation office had sought seven months of incarceration. The district court adopted the recommendation in full, noting the absence of any objections and confirming Cherry’s ongoing compliance, and ordered the case closed.

criminal law

Yashanda Scruggs, formerly Director of Student Success at Johns Hopkins University, sued the university alleging race, sex, and disability discrimination, failure to accommodate her seizure and mood disorders, and retaliation for requesting remote work and filing an internal complaint. After JHU granted an initial remote-work accommodation due to a driving restriction from seizures but denied her request to extend it through March 2022, Scruggs stopped reporting to campus full-time, missed work several days per week, and received performance warnings before her termination in November 2021. The district court granted JHU’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the university had offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination—unsatisfactory job performance and irregular attendance—and that Scruggs had not produced evidence showing this reason was pretextual or retaliatory. The court further held there was no genuine dispute on the accommodation claim because Scruggs had not informed JHU of her mood disorder or requested a reasonable accommodation for it.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Jessica Juselis sued her former employer, Arlington Management Employees LLC (a Delaware company headquartered in Maryland), and its managing partner Peter Manos in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging employment discrimination related to her remote work from D.C. during the COVID-19 pandemic, a denied ergonomic chair request after an injury, and her termination. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over both defendants because neither was “at home” in D.C. at the time of filing and their contacts with D.C. were not sufficiently related to Juselis’s claims; it also denied her request for jurisdictional discovery. Rather than dismiss the case, the court transferred it to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, concluding the transfer was in the interest of justice as it would permit adjudication on the merits and avoid potential statute-of-limitations problems.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, a nonprofit organization and two labor unions sued the Secretary of the Treasury and related officials, alleging that the Department allowed individuals associated with the U.S. DOGE Service to access sensitive Bureau of the Fiscal Service records in violation of the Privacy Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and without proper decisionmaking. The court had previously denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiffs’. It held that the challenged actions did not qualify as final agency action reviewable under the APA and that the plaintiffs failed to meet the high bar for non-statutory ultra vires review, as other potential remedies existed and the record did not show extreme statutory violations.

procedurefederal powertaxeslabor & employment

In this case, plaintiff John S. Barth, proceeding pro se, sued the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act after submitting a February 2021 request for records about himself to the Office of the Attorney General; he believed the records might contain false information that had hindered federal investigations into an alleged racketeering scheme involving Florida politicians. The FBI and Homeland Security Investigations were dismissed earlier because they had not received the request, leaving only DOJ as defendant. The court denied Barth’s motion for recusal and other relief, and granted DOJ’s motion for summary judgment. It held that DOJ’s Office of Information Policy conducted an adequate search of the Departmental Executive Secretariat using variations of Barth’s name, located 26 responsive pages, and properly referred them to the Criminal Division for processing; the search met the legal standard of being reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. The court found no evidence to overcome the presumption of good faith afforded to the agency’s declarations, and thus no genuine dispute of material fact existed.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In this FOIA case, plaintiff Informed Consent Action Network sought autopsy reports from the FDA concerning deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after COVID-19 vaccination, which the agency had located but withheld in full. The court granted summary judgment to the FDA, upholding the complete withholding of the 539 reports. It reasoned that the records qualified for Exemption 6 because disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, that any non-exempt information was inextricably intertwined with exempt material, and that redacted versions would leave only boilerplate language with minimal or no informational value, making production unnecessary.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The underlying consolidated cases involve challenges by voting rights and political organizations to Executive Order No. 14,248 and related federal election policies, with final judgment entered in favor of the defendants on October 31, 2025, followed by appeals. Pro se movant Jose A. Perez sought to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 after judgment, asserting interests tied to the challenged provisions. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion, finding it untimely because Perez had prior opportunity to participate and post-judgment intervention would require relitigation of settled issues. The court further held that neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor federal election statutes confer a right to intervene, and that Perez's interests were already adequately represented by the federal defendants and the Republican National Committee as defendant-intervenor.

electionscivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In this case, Ronald Pannell sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that Deputy U.S. Marshals used excessive force when arresting him in December 2013 after he fled and hid during execution of a warrant. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending that the undisputed facts showed the deputies’ use of punches, a taser, and physical restraint was reasonable under the circumstances. Magistrate Judge Harvey recommended denying the motion, finding a genuine dispute of material fact over whether Pannell was still resisting or had been subdued at the time force was applied. The district court adopted that recommendation (with a revision noting that the claim requires a bench trial rather than a jury), holding that credibility determinations and inferences about the sequence of events—including strikes after partial handcuffing—must be resolved by the fact-finder at trial rather than on summary judgment.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiffs Harinder Kaur and Harman Singh sued two U.S. Park Police officers, Sean Kellenberger and David John Lamond, seeking damages for alleged constitutional violations during a physical confrontation and arrest of Singh that occurred amid a parking enforcement encounter involving a food truck on the National Mall. The defendants moved for summary judgment and, as to Lamond, for dismissal based on improper service. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part, denying the motion to dismiss as to Lamond but granting summary judgment to both officers. The core reasoning was that a Bivens cause of action is unavailable in this context, which resolved the claims without needing to reach the defendants’ alternative qualified-immunity arguments or the factual disputes over the force used.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power