Harry T. Edwards
How Judge Edwards rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Edwards
Harry Thomas Edwards is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Judge Edwards received a commission on February 20, 1980. Judge Edwards assumed senior status on November 3, 2005.
Judge Edwards's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Edwards's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
- Standing Order No. 20-2: Paper Copies of Electronic Filings in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic ↗
- Standing Order No. 20-3: Paper Copies of Electronic Filings in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic ↗
- Notice: Preferred Typefaces for Briefs ↗
- Notice: Specifications for Binding Briefs and Appendices ↗
- Notice Regarding Electronic Filing of Appendices ↗
- Notice: Mandatory Notification of Settlement Proceedings ↗
- Notice: Standard Briefing Schedules for Intervenors and Amici Curiae ↗
- Notice Regarding Use of Acronyms ↗
- Notice: Procedures for Handling Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Edwards decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Spencer v. NLRB, Edwards held that the government's 'position' for Equal Access to Justice Act fee purposes meant the arguments it advanced in litigation.
“we hold that ‘the position of the United States,’ for the purposes of the Act, means the arguments relied upon by the government in litigation.”
He holds agencies to their own precedent: an agency may depart from a settled policy, but only if it explains why, and a departure that is never even acknowledged cannot stand.
“We need hardly elaborate on the settled principle that an agency may not depart from its precedent without explaining and justifying its change in position.”
Procedural preferences
In Cactus Canyon Quarries v. FMSHRC, Edwards denied a fee petition because dismissal of mine-safety citations without prejudice did not make the operator a prevailing party.
“Cactus Canyon is not a ‘prevailing party,’ and we deny the petition for review.”
In Saline Parents v. Garland, Edwards affirmed dismissal of the plaintiffs' challenge to a Justice Department memorandum because they had not shown imminent enforcement against them and their claims were unripe.
“Appellants fail to demonstrate that the Government has in any way threatened imminent, rather than hypothetical, enforcement action against them.”
Cautions
In United States v. Marquez, Edwards held that the district court lacked power under Rule 33 to grant a new trial after the seven-day deadline had passed and reversed its judgment.
“the District Court forfeited the power to act when it failed to grant a new trial or fix a new time for filing a motion for a new trial within seven days of the verdict”
In United States v. Guertin, Edwards affirmed dismissal of a wire-fraud count because the indictment alleged an employee lied about misconduct but did not show the State Department received less than the benefit of its employment bargain.
“If there is no difference between the honest employee and dishonest employee in terms of performance or pay ... criminalizing the lies of a dishonest employee would create an intangible right to honest services in just the way McNally renounces.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We conclude that the court's findings and rulings were proper and accordingly affirm.”
“For the reasons heretofore indicated, we reverse and remand to the NLRB for a determination of back pay and any other appropriate remedies for the employer’s unlawful refusal to bargain.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Board are reversed, and the case remanded to the Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
“Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the ICC abused its discretion in deciding not to impose such protection, we deny the petition for review.”
“We therefore hold that the petitioner's challenge to the Board's decision is without merit, and we deny the petition for review.”
“We dismiss petitioners' claim that the FCC failed to comment, because this issue was never raised before the Commission.”
“We deny the petition for review insofar as it challenges the FCC's failure to require more information”
“We uphold the FLRA’s construction of § 7114(b)(4)(C) ... we vacate the decisions here ... and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Therefore, we deny the Board’s petition and cross-petition for enforcement of its order against Irwin and the Union, and we grant the Union’s petition for review.”
“we deny the Board’s petition and cross-petition for enforcement of its order against Irwin and the Union”
“the petition for rehearing is Denied.”
“we deny the petition for enforcement and vacate the Board's decision.”
“the motion to dismiss is Granted.”
“we ... reverse in part the District Court's dismissal of Gray's claims against Poole on absolute immunity grounds. Poole is entitled to absolute immunity for any testimony that she gave to Superior Court in the child neglect action, and only qualified immunity for all other disputed actions”
“Poole is entitled to absolute immunity for any testimony that she gave to Superior Court in the child neglect action”
Draft for Judge Edwards with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Edwards, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Edwards's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace