In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, I provided a breakdown of some (arguably surprising) statistics regarding the federal judiciary.
In Part 1, I noted the composition of the current Supreme Court — specifically, which justices were appointed by which presidents/political parties. I also provided a breakdown of the court’s decisions over the past three terms, as to unanimity versus split decisions. A quick update on that front: Since that article ran, there have been 18 additional decisions handed down, of which 11 were unanimous and three were 8-1. This means that, for the 2024 term thus far, 27 out of 51 decisions — i.e., 53 percent of them — have been unanimous. Now, that percentage will decrease in the remaining cases this term as the most thorny/contentious ones are generally saved for last. Still, for those who remain convinced that the court only rules along partisan lines, the numbers simply do not bear that out.
READ MORE: By the Numbers: Some Surprising (and Not-Surprising) Stats About the Federal Judiciary (Part 1)
One might argue that the same cannot be said for the lower courts. In that initial installment, I also looked at the composition of the district courts and circuit courts of appeals, determining that Democrat-appointed judges far outnumber Republican-appointed judges at the district court level (boasting a roughly 60-40 advantage). At the appellate court level, Republican-appointed judges hold a slight (very slight) advantage.
Since so many of the cases brought against the Trump administration since January are pending in the D.C. District Court (roughly 200 of them), I decided to drill down on that further. In Part 2, I took a closer look at the partisan composition of the court, noting that, similar to district courts nationwide, Democrat-appointed judges significantly outnumber Republican-appointed judges.
I also looked at how the cases were distributed among the judges, noting that, contrary to some assertions, the infamous Judge James Boasberg doesn’t have “all the high-profile cases.” It’s true that he has a couple of high-profile cases, but he’s handling far fewer of the Trump administration cases (four) than many of his peers. I concluded that “Overall, the only discernible patterns regarding case assignments are that the most senior and most junior have fewer, and the judges who have the most cases assigned to them tend to have cases that lend themselves to being grouped together. “
READ MORE: By the Numbers: Some Surprising (and Not-Surprising) Stats About the D.C. District Court (Part 2)
But the crux of the issue is: How are the D.C. District Court judges ruling? Are they lining up in partisan fashion? The short answer to that is that, yes, some are. But not all. When you dig a little, you might be surprised (at least by some of the judges and their rulings).
I’m just going to go through them in order (by seniority) and provide a brief overview of how each of them is ruling. I will note that, for these purposes, I will essentially exclude FOIA cases unless a definitive ruling has been made. Most of them haven’t had a lot of activity on them, and they’re a bit of a different breed than the standard cases challenging the administration’s actions and seeking injunctive relief, so they don’t really tell us much. (So if the number here is less than referenced in Part 2, that’s why.)
Additional note: New cases are filed every day. New rulings are issued most days. The information below is current as of Wednesday afternoon.
- Royce Lamberth (Reagan) – 10 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 9
- Injunctive relief denied – 0
- Not yet decided – 1
- Paul Friedman (Clinton) – 6 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 2
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 3
- Emmet Sullivan (Clinton) – 1 case
- Injunctive relief granted – 0
- Injunctive relief denied – 0
- Not yet decided – 1
- Colleen Kollar-Kotelly – senior status (Clinton) – 5 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 3 (these were consolidated)
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 1
- Reggie Walton – senior status (Bush 43) – 2 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 1 (summary judgment granted)
- Injunctive relief denied – 0
- Not yet decided – 1 (voluntarily dismissed)
- John Bates – senior status (Bush 43) – 3 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 2
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 0
- Richard Leon – senior status (Bush 43) – 5 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 2
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 2
- Beryl Howell – senior status (Obama) – 9 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 4 (summary judgment granted in 2)
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 4
- James Boasberg – Chief Judge (Obama) – 4 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 2
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 1
- Amy Berman Jackson – senior status (Obama) – 2 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 2
- Injunctive relief denied – 0
- Not yet decided – 0
- Rudolph Contreras (Obama) – 5 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 2
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 2
- Christopher Cooper (Obama) – 7 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 3
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 3 (2 of these were voluntarily dismissed)
- Tanya Chutkan (Obama) – 9 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 5 (these were consolidated)
- Injunctive relief denied – 3 (2 of these were consolidated)
- Not yet decided – 1
- Randolph Moss (Obama) – 9 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 0
- Injunctive relief denied – 5
- Not yet decided – 4
- Amit Mehta (Obama) – 2 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 0
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 1
- Timothy Kelly (Trump) – 6 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 0
- Injunctive relief denied – 5
- Not yet decided – 1
- Trevor McFadden (Trump) – 6 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 1
- Injunctive relief denied – 4
- Not yet decided – 1
- Dabney Friedrich (Trump) – 6 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 2
- Injunctive relief denied – 2
- Not yet decided – 2
- Carl Nichols (Trump) – 7 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 0
- Injunctive relief denied – 6
- Not yet decided – 1 (voluntarily dismissed)
- Jia Cobb (Biden) – 11 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 1
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 9 (3 voluntarily dismissed)
- Ana Reyes (Biden) – 5 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 1
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 3
- Loren AliKhan (Biden) – 6 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 3
- Injunctive relief denied – 0
- Not yet decided – 3 (1 voluntarily dismissed)
- Amir Ali (Biden) – 8 cases
- Injunctive relief granted – 2
- Injunctive relief denied – 1
- Not yet decided – 5
- Sparkle Sooknanan (Biden) – 1 case
- Injunctive relief granted – 1
- Injunctive relief denied – 0
- Not yet decided – 0
So…are there any discernible patterns in these rulings? Well, broadly speaking, yes.
- Majority of rulings favor injunctive relief
- Lamberth (Reagan)
- Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton)
- Howell (Obama)
- Berman Jackson (Obama)
- Cooper (Obama)
- Chutkan (Obama)
- AliKhan (Biden)
- Majority of rulings disfavor injunctive relief
- Moss (Obama)
- Kelly (Trump)
- McFadden (Trump)
- Nichols (Trump)
Democrat-appointed judges lean toward granting plaintiffs injunctive relief (and thus, ruling against the administration). Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, would appear to be an outlier in terms of towing the (Republican) party line. Then again, he’s a Reagan appointee.
Trump-appointed judges lean toward denying plaintiffs injunctive relief (and thus, ruling in favor of the administration). Moss, an Obama appointee, is an outlier in the opposite direction from Lamberth.
That said, there are judges like, for instance, Tanya Chutkan, who’s an Obama appointee and who’s ruled more in favor of injunctive relief than against it — but she’s also issued three rulings denying it. (And keep in mind, she was the one who oversaw the D.C. criminal prosecution of Trump.)
And there’s Judge Boasberg, who not only does not have an inordinate number of these cases, but has ruled in favor of the administration in at least one of them. And he’s obviously had a contentious relationship with the administration over the J.G.G. case.
There are also several judges whose rulings have been fairly evenly split between granting and denying injunctive relief, or who simply haven’t issued many substantive rulings yet.
Obviously, there are a number of variables in play here, but the primary takeaway, in my observation, is that Democrat-appointed judges tend to rule against the administration and Trump-appointed (not Republican-appointed, mind you) judges tend to rule in favor of the administration.
Thus, in a jurisdiction like the D.C. District, where 16 out of 24 active judges are Democrat appointees — and of the 8 Republican appointees, only 4 are Trump appointees — the odds do not favor the administration. And yet, they’ve still secured some wins (even from judges you’d expect not to favor them) — and a fair share of the losses likely aren’t going to stand on appeal.
Are they fighting an uphill battle? Yes. Is it a losing battle? No.
Editor’s Note: Partisan federal judges are hijacking President Trump’s agenda and insulting the will of the people
Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump’s mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
