Trevor Neil McFadden

In 2021, Bennie J. Floyd received a 72-month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. He later moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction to 59 months, citing Amendment 821, which retroactively reduced the impact of “status points” on his criminal-history score and lowered his advisory Guidelines range to 57–71 months. The court found Floyd eligible for a reduction but denied the motion after weighing the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It concluded that Floyd’s extensive violent criminal history, repeated reoffending while on supervised release, and multiple serious disciplinary infractions while incarcerated continued to justify the original 72-month term to deter future crime and protect the public. The court determined that these circumstances outweighed any policy change reflected in the amended Guidelines.

criminal law

In United States v. Allen, defendant Cole Tomas Allen faced charges including the attempted assassination of President Trump at a White House Correspondents’ Association dinner attended by senior officials. Allen moved to disqualify Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro (and potentially the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office) from handling the prosecution, arguing that their presence at the event, public statements afterward, and Pirro’s personal friendship with the President created actual or apparent conflicts of interest. The district court denied the motion. It held that neither official qualified as a legal “victim” of the charged offenses, that their media comments reflected ordinary prosecutorial interest rather than disqualifying bias, and that the friendship did not meet the standards for a personal or political conflict under 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 or Due Process precedents such as Marshall v. Jerrico and United States v. Heldt. The court emphasized that disqualification of prosecutors is a drastic remedy applied only in limited circumstances and is narrower than the impartiality rules governing judges.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves Peter Schiff’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the IRS, in which he challenged the agency’s handling of two records requests. In an earlier ruling, the district court held that the IRS had conducted an adequate search for the first request but failed to justify withholding documents under FOIA exemptions 5 and 7, and that Schiff’s second request reasonably described the records sought. On the IRS’s motion for reconsideration, the court declined to revisit those holdings, finding no change in law, new evidence, or clear error that would warrant altering the outcome, and noting that the agency had already had an opportunity to support its exemption claims. The court did, however, amend its order to require production of only non-exempt material responsive to the second request and to remove language characterizing the ruling as final, consistent with both parties’ request for ongoing judicial oversight.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

Martin Hamburger sued CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield and Caremark under ERISA, alleging denial of benefits and breach of fiduciary duty after the insurers refused to cover Zepbound, a GLP-1 drug his doctor prescribed to treat obstructive sleep apnea. The court dismissed both claims, ruling that the health plan’s Group Contract expressly excludes coverage for prescription drugs used for weight loss, and Zepbound falls under that exclusion as an anti-obesity agent even though the FDA approved it for sleep apnea in obese adults. The court found the fiduciary-duty claim duplicative of the benefits claim (which supplies an adequate remedy) and unsupported because the denial followed the plan’s terms without any breach. The putative class action also failed, as the named plaintiff lacked a viable individual claim.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Kimberly Clisbee filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States and various federal and California defendants, alleging medical malpractice, fraud, and other harms to her medically fragile daughter and disabled husband over more than a decade in California, along with related claims of stalking and retaliation. The court dismissed the 117-page complaint without prejudice for failing to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement of the claims that gives defendants fair notice. The opinion explained that the filing was excessively long, rambling, disjointed, and filled with incoherent allegations and irrelevant material, making it impossible to discern the specific claims or the court’s jurisdiction. It also denied Clisbee’s motion for recusal, finding no basis under 28 U.S.C. § 455, and denied her remaining motions for procedural and substantive deficiencies.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves parents of a student with disabilities who sued the District of Columbia under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), alleging that DCPS failed to provide their child a free appropriate public education through adequate individualized education programs (IEPs) developed in 2019. After an administrative hearing officer twice denied the parents' claims for relief, including tuition reimbursement for a private school placement, the parents sought to overturn those decisions in federal court through cross-motions for summary judgment. The court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, granting in part and denying in part both motions. It upheld the hearing officer's conclusion that the December 2019 IEP was adequate under IDEA standards but did not resolve challenges to the other two IEPs because the parties did not object to those portions of the report. The court reasoned that the hearing officer had adequately considered the relevant evidence and issues on remand, and it gave due weight to his administrative findings while rejecting the parents' objections as largely rearguing how evidence should have been weighed.

civil rights

Wynton Johnson sued his former employer, Bow Wave LLC, alleging violations of Title VII and D.C. anti-discrimination laws based on two comments by his supervisor referencing his sexual orientation and race, plus claims of differential treatment in leave approval and desk monitoring. Bow Wave removed the case from D.C. Superior Court to federal court and moved to dismiss, while Johnson sought remand. The court denied remand because the complaint expressly invoked federal Title VII claims, establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It dismissed the suit without prejudice, finding the disparate-treatment allegations lacked facts showing comparators were similarly situated, the two isolated comments did not plausibly create a hostile work environment, and the retaliation claim failed to allege any adverse action following protected activity.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

Dr. James M. Murphy sued U.S. Air Force officials, including new defendants Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink, alleging that the disclosure of information about a past sexual assault allegation to his employer at an Army medical center violated the Privacy Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This case followed an earlier lawsuit raising similar Privacy Act claims, in which another judge in the same district granted summary judgment to the Air Force. The court dismissed the complaint, ruling that claim preclusion barred the suit because it involved the same claims or causes of action that could have been raised in the prior litigation, between the same parties or their privies, after a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. Murphy’s opposition failed to engage with the defendants’ arguments, which the court treated as a concession supporting dismissal.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The Organization of American Historians sued the Office of Management and Budget, National Park Service, and Department of the Interior under FOIA, alleging that the agencies improperly denied expedited processing of requests for records concerning the Trump Administration’s implementation of Executive Order 14253 on federal historical sites and exhibits. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction ordering the agencies to grant expedited processing and produce all non-exempt records within 30 days. The court denied the motion, holding that the Historians failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm because they could not identify a specific imminent event after which the requested records would lose substantial value to the public. The court further noted that the requested relief was mandatory and would effectively grant the full relief sought in the complaint while disadvantaging other FOIA requesters awaiting standard processing.

procedurefederal power

In Smart Approaches to Marijuana v. Kennedy, various plaintiffs including a Medicare beneficiary, a physician, multiple advocacy organizations, and a pharmaceutical company challenged a voluntary 2026 CMMI model component allowing participating Medicare providers to offer up to $500 annually in hemp products to beneficiaries. They argued the program violated the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements, was arbitrary and capricious, exceeded statutory authority, conflicted with appropriations law, and infringed Fifth Amendment rights. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit for lack of Article III standing and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. The court held that none of the plaintiffs had shown a concrete, imminent injury fairly traceable to the program and redressable by judicial relief, as their claims rested on abstract policy objections, speculative future effects, or self-inflicted resource diversions, consistent with Supreme Court precedent such as FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

In Barry v. United Food and Commercial Workers, two members of the United Food and Commercial Workers union challenged the union’s graduated proportionality formula for allocating convention delegates among its 330 local affiliates, claiming that the system—under which larger locals receive progressively fewer delegates per member—diluted their voting power and violated the equal-rights-to-vote guarantee in Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(1). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the union’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion on that sole remaining claim. The court first confirmed jurisdiction, finding the claim properly brought under Title I because it sought only prospective relief that would not require invalidating or supervising officer elections covered by Title IV. On the merits, the court held that the formula, which assigns delegates in size-based bands that reduce the delegate-to-member ratio as locals grow larger, did not infringe members’ equal right to vote or, at a minimum, constituted a reasonable regulation of that right.

labor & employment

Jerson Velazquez Ordonez, a pro se plaintiff, filed suit in federal court against more than forty defendants, alleging a range of claims including professional negligence, identity theft, divorce fraud, and inducement of crisis, stemming from asserted obstruction of financial support and retaliation following his investigative work. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court held that the filings failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement of the claims and grounds for jurisdiction sufficient to give defendants fair notice. Ordonez’s allegations were scattered, unclear as to the underlying events and legal bases, and did not establish this court’s jurisdiction, while his additional motions were denied for similar deficiencies or noncompliance with procedural rules.

procedurefamily lawtorts & liabilitycriminal law

In Khoshdel Nikkho v. Rubio, a U.S. citizen and his Iranian wife sued State Department officials after her immigrant visa application was refused following a May 2025 embassy interview and placed into administrative processing, with no further action or final decision. The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus and relief under the Administrative Procedure Act to compel the Department to render a decision within thirty days, claiming unreasonable delay. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that a refusal under INA section 221(g) fulfilled the Department's only nondiscretionary duty—to grant or refuse the visa—leaving no enforceable obligation regarding administrative processing. The court also held that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability barred judicial review of the consular officer's decision and any subsequent discretionary steps.

immigrationprocedure

Fred Jackson, a pro se plaintiff, sued the Secretary of the Treasury alleging employment discrimination after the agency rescinded a job offer during a background investigation, which Jackson had challenged by raising concerns about possible fraud, waste, and abuse and requesting EEOC counseling. The Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court reasoned that the complaint failed to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which demands a short and plain statement giving the defendant fair notice of the claim; Jackson’s allegations contained no facts indicating that race or any other protected characteristic motivated the rescission, leaving the Secretary unable to identify or respond to a cognizable claim even after liberally construing the pro se filings.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Jin Yang sued the District of Columbia and unnamed Metropolitan Police Department officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that her September 2022 arrest outside the Chinese Embassy—while filming on a public sidewalk—violated her First and Fourth Amendment rights through excessive force. She also asserted a municipal liability claim against the District under Monell v. New York Department of Social Services, alleging a custom of deferring to Chinese Embassy security demands and a failure to train officers. The court granted the District’s motion to dismiss that Monell claim without prejudice. It reasoned that Yang’s allegations did not plausibly link any predicate constitutional violation to an official policy, widespread custom, or deliberate indifference, as her examples of other individuals’ encounters were too sparse and dissimilar to establish municipal liability. The court nevertheless permitted her to file an amended complaint within one month.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

Nurit Zeevi, a U.S. citizen living in Israel, sued the State Department after the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem denied her 2013-born daughter M.Z.’s applications for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and U.S. passport. The Embassy rejected the applications under 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c), which requires an unwed U.S. citizen mother to show one continuous year of physical presence in the United States before the child’s birth, even though Zeevi had met the five-year total presence standard in § 1401(g). Zeevi brought claims for herself and on M.Z.’s behalf, alleging the denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and contrary to law, and also violated equal protection under the Fifth Amendment by treating unwed mothers more strictly than unwed fathers. The court dismissed Zeevi’s personal claims for lack of standing but allowed M.Z.’s APA claim to proceed, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1503(b) and (c) do not provide an exclusive or adequate alternative remedy that would bar APA review, consistent with precedents such as Rusk v. Cort.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

Matthew Adams sued his former employer, Fort Myer Construction Corporation, alleging he was fired in retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination. Fort Myer responded with counterclaims asserting that Adams, who had served as associate general counsel, was terminated for disloyal conduct during an internal dispute involving co-founder Lewis Shrensky, including helping Shrensky, withholding information from the company, and mishandling company property; it specifically alleged breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and conversion. The court granted Adams’s motion to dismiss the conversion claim but denied it as to the other two counterclaims. It found the breach and malpractice allegations sufficient to state plausible claims because they described specific actions such as Adams’s assistance to Shrensky and deletion of evidence. The conversion claim failed because Fort Myer’s allegations of downloading digital files did not plausibly show the serious interference with property rights required under D.C. law, relying instead on conclusory assertions.

labor & employmentcivil rightsbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

Jason Wiggins sued the District of Columbia and two Metropolitan Police Department officers after his arrest for making threats during a domestic dispute with his former girlfriend, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest, a Monell claim against the District, and various D.C. tort claims including defamation. The underlying incident began with mutual 911 calls over a heated argument about a metro card; officers interviewed both parties at the apartment complex, where the ex-girlfriend reported that Wiggins had threatened to harm her, and they arrested him despite his denials and offer of a video. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire complaint. It held that the complaint and attached bodycam footage established probable cause for the arrest based on the ex-girlfriend’s account, which defeated the federal claims and most tort claims. The remaining claims failed because the officers’ statements were substantially true or protected by privilege.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

Tyreem Fosque, a gay man employed as a special police officer by the District of Columbia Housing Authority, was accused of sexually assaulting a colleague, denied the allegation, and was placed on leave, investigated, and ultimately terminated after appealing on grounds that the claims were false and discriminatory. He sued the Housing Authority under Title VII and the D.C. Human Rights Act, alleging disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation based on his sexual orientation. The Housing Authority moved to dismiss all claims. The court denied the motion in part, allowing the claims against the Housing Authority to proceed while dismissing the police department as a defendant. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court accepted Fosque’s factual allegations as true and found that he had plausibly stated claims by alleging common knowledge of his sexual orientation, inconsistencies in the accusations and investigation process, and a causal link between his discrimination complaint and his termination.

civil rightslabor & employment

Jason Leopold and Buzzfeed sued the Department of Justice under FOIA after the agency indicated it would take months to respond to their requests for records about DOJ’s handling of the 2020 presidential election. The parties eventually resolved the merits, with the court granting DOJ summary judgment on all but one document, after which Buzzfeed sought roughly $52,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court held that Buzzfeed was eligible for and entitled to fees as a substantially prevailing plaintiff but found the requested amount excessive. It therefore reduced the merits-stage fees to about $14,265 to account for time spent on unsuccessful claims, limited fees-on-fees to roughly 30 percent of the merits award ($4,280), and awarded the full $1,398.51 in documented costs, for a total of $19,943.51.

electionsprocedurefederal power