Emmet G. Sullivan

Cemone Bynum, an African-American DBH employee with mental health disorders, sued the District of Columbia under the ADA and Title VII, claiming denial of reasonable accommodations, retaliation, and a hostile work environment stemming from a March 2016 workplace dispute with a coworker, a resulting disciplinary letter, and the handling of her accommodation requests. The district court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment on all four counts and denied Bynum’s cross-motion. It adopted the magistrate judge’s findings that Bynum received reasonable accommodations (including relocation of her workspace to another floor, separation from the coworker, and other adjustments) and that the undisputed facts showed no actionable retaliation or hostile environment, while rejecting only limited portions of the magistrate’s analysis on the hostile-work-environment claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Katie Phang, a journalist, sued Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche under the Administrative Procedure Act and related doctrines, alleging that the Department of Justice violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by improperly withholding or redacting documents, failing to justify redactions in the Federal Register, not producing foreign-language materials or underlying interview notes, and omitting a required report to Congress after releasing millions of pages of Epstein-related files. She sought a preliminary injunction to compel specific corrective actions on identified documents and processes. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion after reviewing the parties’ filings and the statutory requirements. The court determined that Phang satisfied the standards for preliminary relief, including a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the claimed violations of the Act’s disclosure, redaction, and reporting mandates, along with irreparable harm from delayed access.

federal powerprocedure

Katie Phang, a journalist, sued Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche under the Administrative Procedure Act and related doctrines, alleging that the Department of Justice violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by improperly withholding or redacting documents, failing to justify redactions in the Federal Register, not producing foreign-language materials or underlying interview notes, and omitting a required report to Congress after releasing millions of pages of Epstein-related files. She sought a preliminary injunction to compel specific corrective actions on identified documents and processes. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion after reviewing the parties’ filings and the statutory requirements. The court determined that Phang satisfied the standards for preliminary relief, including a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the claimed violations of the Act’s disclosure, redaction, and reporting mandates, along with irreparable harm from delayed access.

federal powerprocedure

The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Shahnawaz Mathias and related entities, alleging unregistered securities offerings, fraud under the Securities and Exchange Acts, and reporting violations. In this opinion, the court denied Mathias’s motion seeking relief from a prior order and dismissal for insufficient service of process. The court held that Mathias waived any Rule 12(b)(5) defense by filing an earlier motion to dismiss on other grounds without including or later amending to add a service objection after he was served. Even without waiver, service was valid because the summons was left at his usual place of business with the property manager, consistent with Pennsylvania law and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1); his claim that foreign travel required compliance with Rule 4(f) was rejected as that rule is not exclusive.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves defendant Jordan Holley, who is charged with one count of Travel With Intent to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) and moved for bond review to be released into a High Intensity Supervision Program with conditions, including no internet access, following an initial release by a magistrate judge that was later reversed. The court denied the motion and ordered Holley detained pending trial. It applied the statutory rebuttable presumption under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E) that no conditions would reasonably assure community safety given the minor-victim offense, found that Holley had not produced sufficient credible evidence to overcome it, and incorporated its prior analysis of the offense's nature and circumstances, the weight of the evidence, and his history and characteristics. The court concluded that the new Pre-Trial Psychosexual Risk Assessment, while noting early treatment progress and framing risk as dynamic and manageable with supervision, did not rebut the presumption because Holley remains in early stages of addressing longstanding issues, cannot be monitored continuously to prevent access to prohibited materials or substances, and multiple risk factors for reoffending are present.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Mahabad Mohammed Ismael sued U.S. Embassy and State Department officials under the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act, seeking to compel faster processing of her and her children's immigrant visa applications, which stemmed from a 2007 family-based petition and remained in administrative processing after a 2023 consular interview. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court applied the six TRAC factors for assessing unreasonable agency delay and found that, although some factors supported the plaintiff, the two most important ones—the reasonableness of the delay given the circumstances and the disruptive effect of judicial intervention on the agency's competing visa-processing priorities—weighed against relief. It also noted the consular non-reviewability doctrine but did not resolve the claims on that ground.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Dueward W. Cranford, II and others, including the Citizens for Equal Rights Alliance, sued the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of Justice, and various officials in their official and individual capacities. They alleged violations of the Federal Recognition Tribal List Act, ineligibility of the Ione Band to acquire land under the Indian Reorganization Act and Indian Consolidation Act, constitutional violations under the property/territory clause and Tenth Amendment, and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for limited expedited jurisdictional discovery, which they sought to prepare an opposition to anticipated motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that sovereign immunity—a legal question, not a factual one—barred jurisdiction over the federal defendants and that the requested discovery would not alter that analysis or demonstrate any basis for personal jurisdiction over individual-capacity defendants.

civil rightsfederal powerpropertyprocedure

In Maniar v. Wolf, two U.S. citizens alleged they were placed in the Terrorist Screening Dataset (including the No Fly and Selectee Lists) without notice or process, claiming this violated their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection rights, First Amendment rights, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act by burdening their travel and religious practices. They sued multiple federal officials in their official capacities seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the government’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in full. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege they were actually on the lists or that any placement imposed a substantial burden on protected rights, that the watchlisting process satisfied procedural due process requirements given national security interests, and that other claims were either meritless or premature. The case was dismissed without prejudice.

civil rightsfree speechreligious libertyprocedure

In Center City Public Charter School v. Archer, a public charter school sought judicial review under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of a hearing officer’s determination that it had violated the Act by improperly amending the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with developmental delays and moving him to a self-contained classroom without proper team decision-making. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the school’s motion for summary judgment and denied the parent’s cross-motion, reversing the hearing officer. The court found that the IEP amendment increasing specialized instruction outside the general education setting complied with federal regulations (34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(4)) and that the parent had requested the placement, participated in discussions, and signed the amendment. It further held that any procedural concerns did not deny the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE), as the parent’s opportunity to participate was not significantly impeded and the placement was consistent with the student’s needs.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In 2019, Saint Vincent Harris was sentenced to five years in prison plus three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. In 2023, the Probation Office alleged that Harris had violated several supervised release conditions, including failing to report a change of address, using THC, skipping required programs and treatment, and disobeying probation instructions; a warrant was issued and later executed. At a 2026 hearing before a magistrate judge, Harris admitted the violations, and the government, Probation Office, and Harris jointly recommended a sentence of time served with no additional supervision, citing his progress on substance abuse issues. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that disposition, and the district court adopted it in full, imposing only time-served imprisonment and ending supervision.

criminal lawguns

Jacqueline Jackson, an educational aide at a District of Columbia public school, sued the District and two school employees on eleven counts alleging sexual and disability harassment, racial discrimination, reprisal, wrongful discharge, and several tort claims under federal and D.C. law. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the four D.C.-law tort claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and violation of the hate-crime statute), arguing that Jackson had not complied with the pre-suit notice requirement of D.C. Code § 12-309. The court granted the motion, holding that the undisputed facts showed no written notice had been filed with the Mayor’s Office within six months of the alleged injuries, a mandatory prerequisite that strictly limits the District’s waiver of sovereign immunity and that also bars claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities. Because Jackson offered no opposition and no evidence of notice, summary judgment was entered on those four counts.

civil rightslabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In this ERISA case, the National I.A.M. Benefit Trust Fund and its fiduciary sued the Borough of Bellwood, a Pennsylvania municipality, for failing to comply with a routine payroll audit for 2020–2022 required by the parties’ Participation Agreement, the Fund’s Trust Agreement, and its Audit Policy. After the defendant was served but never responded, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. The court ordered the borough to permit the audit and awarded the Fund $2,953.40 in attorney’s fees and $510 in costs, concluding that the defendant was bound by the agreements, that ERISA sections 502(a)(3) and 515 authorized enforcement, and that the requested fees and costs were reasonable based on documented hours, Fitzpatrick Matrix rates, and the Fund’s policy requiring employers to cover enforcement expenses.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves plaintiffs, including individuals and the Citizens for Equal Rights Alliance, who sued the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies and officials, challenging the federal government's approval of land into trust for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians and the subsequent development of the Acorn Ridge casino in Plymouth, California. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop further construction of the casino, which broke ground in 2024 and is set to open in 2026, raising claims under the Federal Recognition Tribal List Act, the Indian Reorganization Act, the Constitution's property and Tenth Amendment clauses, and a civil conspiracy statute. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It reasoned that plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits—given prior Ninth Circuit rulings upholding the same agency determinations—and had failed to show irreparable harm, while also noting that injunctive relief is unavailable against officials sued in their individual capacities.

federal powerpropertybusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Holley, the defendant was charged with traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) after arranging to meet an undercover officer posing as the father of a nine-year-old girl for the purpose of sexual abuse. After an initial release order by a magistrate judge, the district court granted the government’s request for detention and later denied Holley’s motion to reinstate release. The court held that Holley failed to rebut the presumption of dangerousness, finding by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release could reasonably assure community safety. It based this on extensive evidence of graphic online communications in which Holley described past sexual abuse of children and expressed intent to commit future abuse, concluding that proposed supervision by family members could not adequately mitigate the risk.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves defendant Jordan Holley, who was charged with one count of traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) after arranging to meet an undercover FBI officer posing as the father of a nine-year-old girl to engage in sexual activity with the child. After an initial release order by a magistrate judge, the government successfully appealed for detention; Holley then moved for reconsideration to reinstate pretrial release under strict conditions including home incarceration. The court denied the motion and ordered Holley detained pending trial. It found that the charge triggered a presumption of dangerousness that Holley failed to rebut, based on evidence of graphic online communications planning the offense, his arrival at the arranged meeting with sex-related items, statements describing past sexual abuse of children, and repeated expressions of intent to commit violent sexual acts against minors. The court concluded that no set of release conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the community.

criminal law

In this case, immigrant investors who had been denied EB-5 visas sued U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services after the agency changed its interpretation of what counted as qualifying “capital” under its regulations, treating unsecured loan proceeds differently from cash. The plaintiffs prevailed in the underlying litigation, with the district court invalidating the policy under the Administrative Procedure Act and the D.C. Circuit affirming that decision. After the government declined further review, the plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court granted the motion in part, awarding $207,702.33 in fees and $19,850 in expenses. It calculated fees using the EAJA’s statutory hourly rate adjusted for cost-of-living increases rather than counsel’s higher market or Laffey rates, approved documented expenses for expert work needed to establish eligibility, and found the government had not contested that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties whose request was substantially justified.

immigrationbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Rashid Ellis, an African American Secret Service agent since 2011, sued the Department of Homeland Security alleging race, color, and perceived-religion discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment stemming from repeated coworker harassment—including racial slurs, physical attacks during training, threats with a loaded gun and vehicle, and false misconduct accusations that led to discipline—along with the agency’s failure to take corrective action. The district court granted in part and denied in part the agency’s motion to dismiss. It allowed the hostile-work-environment claims to proceed, holding that the alleged conduct, viewed in its totality over multiple years, was sufficiently severe or pervasive to state a plausible claim under Title VII. The court found the incidents comparable to or more serious than those upheld in prior cases and rejected the agency’s arguments that the claims were insufficiently pleaded.

civil rightslabor & employmentreligious liberty

This case is a FOIA lawsuit in which American Oversight sought communications between the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress regarding 2017 health care reform legislation. After the D.C. Circuit ordered the agencies to produce records previously withheld under the deliberative process privilege, the House Committee on Ways and Means intervened, claiming the documents were congressionally controlled and therefore not agency records subject to FOIA. The district court denied the Committee’s motion for summary judgment and granted American Oversight’s cross-motion, holding that the records are agency records. The court reasoned that Congress had not clearly manifested an intent to retain control, as the agencies had created or received the documents for their own use, the Committee’s generic disclaimers were insufficient, and no consistent restrictions on the agencies’ handling or disposition of the records had been shown.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

Michael Stovall, an African-American farmer, sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Secretary, alleging breach of a 1998 settlement agreement, race discrimination in loan servicing and foreclosure attempts under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, Fifth Amendment due process violations, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, all tied to disputed loan payments, write-offs, and debt calculations. The Department moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the entire action without prejudice. It did so primarily because Stovall failed to respond substantively in his opposition brief to the Department’s arguments on the ECOA and APA claims, thereby conceding them under D.C. Circuit precedent treating unaddressed arguments as conceded, while also addressing threshold jurisdictional defects across the complaint.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

In Andrews v. Nielson, plaintiff Cynthia Andrews brought employment discrimination claims against her employer, including under the Rehabilitation Act, with the sole remaining issue concerning a workspace relocation claim after the court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant. The plaintiff was directed to file a motion for reconsideration by May 2023 but failed to do so, resulting in no activity in the case for nearly two years despite a court order to show cause. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the remaining claim with prejudice and entered judgment for the defendant. The court relied on its inherent authority to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute or comply with orders, as well as its power to manage dockets efficiently, noting the prolonged and unexplained inactivity.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure