David S. Tatel

How Judge Tatel rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Tatel no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Retired 2024
Served
1994–2024
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1994-10-07
Education
University of Michigan (B.A., political science, 1963); University of Chicago Law School (J.D., 1966)
Signed orders read
28

How Judge Tatel decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He polices the boundary between overlapping agency jurisdictions with a strict clear-statement rule: one agency's authority does not silently repeal another's exclusive jurisdiction, and where two agencies assert conflicting claims neither receives deference.

“To be clear, there are limits to what comes within CEA section 2(a)(1)(A)'s orbit, but once a scheme crosses the statute's event horizon, the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction.”

He reads remedial statutes to serve their protective purpose over a narrower literal gloss: when a word like 'daily' or a phrase like 'otherwise make unavailable' carries a plain protective meaning, that meaning controls.

“For the foregoing reasons, we remand to the district court with instructions to vacate EPA's approvals.”

When an agency invokes a narrow administrative exemption, it must explain why a narrower alternative would not work rather than offer a nonresponsive assertion of trivial impact.

“Given EPA’s obligation to adopt the narrowest exemption possible, it should have explained why it rejected an option that would have reduced emissions from sources the Deferral Rule permanently exempts.”

A records-search declaration must disclose enough about search terms and workarounds for the requester to test whether the procedures were adequate.

“Because the FBI failed to offer any such explanation, the Reporters Committee was left without ‘information specific enough . . . to challenge the procedures utilized,’”

Prospective educational services do not moot a claim for compensatory education addressing past deficiencies when the court can still grant that distinct relief.

“the district court has the authority to grant Boose the compensatory education she asks for—a question it should have addressed on the merits.”

Procedural preferences

He enforces finality and jurisdictional limits rigorously before reaching any merits: a non-final agency order, an unconsummated decisionmaking process, or a disciplinary referral that fixes no rights is dismissed for want of jurisdiction rather than reviewed.

“For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.”

Agency action is not final when the agency repeatedly signals that its decisionmaking remains unconsummated, regardless of appellate counsel's later characterization.

“the Commission made clear that its decision making regarding the three challenged features remained unconsummated.”

Cautions

He holds agencies to their own reasoning: a decision that departs from the agency's established precedent, or rests on a rationale the record does not actually support, cannot stand and will be vacated or remanded even where the court might ultimately defer.

“Finding no retroactive ratemaking, we deny the portion of IDACORP's petition relating to OOM charges. But because we conclude that FERC's acceptance of CAISO's compliance filing was arbitrary and capricious, we grant IDACORP's petition in part.”

Post-plea legal misadvice is not automatically nonprejudicial because the defendant may still have sought to withdraw the plea; timing alone cannot resolve the petition.

“the district court should not have denied the petition based solely on the timing of defense counsel’s misrepresentations,”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
No. 01-1407, consolidated with 01-1415 · 2003-01-17
Petition for review (petitioners (Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation and Exxon Mobil with the other Indicated Shippers)) Granted

“Because the Commission failed to reconcile its decision here with an earlier opinion on a related matter, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.”

Honeywell International, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
No. 02-1371, consolidated with 02-1372 · 2004-06-29
Petition for review (petitioners (Honeywell International and an adjoining landowner)) Denied

“We have considered all petitioners' remaining arguments and, finding them without merit, we deny the petitions for review.”

Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection v. Environmental Protection Agency
· 2005-11-29
Petition for review (petitioners (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Delaware)) Denied

“The petitions for review are denied.”

Idacorp Energy L.P. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 2006-01-10
Petition for review (petitioner (IDACORP Energy L.P., a California grid scheduling coordinator seeking a refund)) Granted in part

“Finding no retroactive ratemaking, we deny the portion of IDACORP's petition relating to OOM charges. But because we conclude that FERC's acceptance of CAISO's compliance filing was arbitrary and capricious, we grant IDACORP's petition in part.”

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
No. 05-5015 · 2006-04-25
Appeal (appellant (Friends of the Earth, Inc.)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we remand to the district court with instructions to vacate EPA's approvals.”

Williams v. Martinez
· 2009-11-13
Appeal (appellant (Craig Allan Williams, habeas petitioner)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the dismissal of Williams's habeas petition and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Council for Urological Interests v. Sebelius
No. 11-5030 · 2011-12-23
Appeal (appellant (Council for Urological Interests)) Granted

“We reverse the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement v. United States
No. 11-5350 · 2013-01-04
Appeal (appellant (Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.”

Hunter v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
No. 11-1477 · 2013-03-15
Petition for review (petitioner (Brian Hunter, natural-gas futures trader fined by the Commission)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review.”

Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency
· 2013-07-12
Petition for review (petitioners (Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petitions for review and vacate the Deferral Rule.”

Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia
· 2013-11-15
Appeal (appellants (class of female detainees; the District and a former Superior Court Marshal are appellees)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.”

United States v. Duane McKinney
No. 12-3110 · 2013-12-17
Appeal (appellant (Duane McKinney; the United States is appellee)) Denied

“We therefore affirm.”

A historical record

Judge Tatel no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.