Stephen F. Williams

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

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

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Position
Circuit judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1986–2020
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
June 16, 1986
Education
Yale University (B.A., 1958); Harvard Law School (J.D., 1961)
Signed orders read
28

About Judge Williams

Stephen Fain Williams was a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Williams received a commission on June 16, 1986. Judge Williams assumed senior status on September 30, 2001 and served until death on August 7, 2020.

How Judge Williams decides

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

What persuades

Permits an agency to fill a genuine gap in the drug-naming statute with interim names when that practice fits the statutory structure.

“the FDA’s designation of ‘interim’ or ‘provisional’ established names outside the § 352(e)(3) triad appears both consistent with the statutory structure and reasonable.”

Procedural preferences

Requires a federal labor agency to identify an authoritative interpretation before declaring a union proposal incompatible with a government-wide regulation.

“the FLRA cannot take the same action in the absence of an authoritative interpretation”

Cautions

Holds an environmental agency to the categories Congress enumerated for a gasoline opt-in program; policy reasons cannot add an unlisted category.

“In § 211(k)(6) Congress provided for opt-in only for areas classified as Marginal, Moderate, Serious or Severe. It meant what it said.”

Signed rulings

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

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration
· 1991-07-12
Petition for review (petitioners (labor (UAW) and industry (NAM))) Granted in part

“Accordingly, we remand the case to OSHA for further consideration in light of this opinion.”

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton and District of Columbia Department of Corrections
· 1992-02-14
Appeal (appellant (defendant Patricia Britton, District of Columbia corrections officer)) Granted

“Reversed and remanded.”

Willmar Electric Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
· 1992-07-21
Petition for review (petitioner (Willmar Electric Service, Inc.)) Denied

“Accordingly, we deny Willmar s petition for review and grant the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement of its order.”

Cross application for enforcement (National Labor Relations Board) Granted
National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
· 1994-08-05
Petition for review (petitioner (National Treasury Employees Union)) Granted

“we set aside the determination of nonnegotiability and remand for further proceedings.”

McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
· 1995-07-18
Petition for review (petitioner (McDonnell Douglas Corporation)) Granted

“We therefore remand the case to the Board.”

Western Resources, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1995-12-22
Petition for review (petitioner (Western Resources, Inc.)) Denied

“Accordingly, the petition for review is Denied.”

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1996-06-11
Petition for review (petitioner (Florida Power & Light Company)) Granted

“The petition for review is granted and the case remanded to the Commission.”

Natural Gas Clearinghouse v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1997-03-18
Petition for review (petitioner (Natural Gas Clearinghouse)) Denied

“we deny the petition for review.”

John Stanton v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
· 1997-12-03
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff John Stanton)) Granted in part

“Accordingly we affirm in part and reverse in part.”

Teicher v. Securities & Exchange Commission
98-1287 · 1999-06-01
Petition for review (petitioners (Victor Teicher and Ross S. Frankel)) Granted in part

“We affirm the SEC's order barring Teicher from associat- ing with any investment adviser, registered or unregistered, but find the order in excess of the Commission's powers insofar as it purports to bar Frankel from becoming associat- ed with an investment adviser.”

Accuracy in Media, Inc. v. National Park Service
98-5535 · 1999-10-26
Appeal (appellant (FOIA requester Accuracy in Media, Inc.)) Denied

“we affirm the district court.”

American Petroleum Institute v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
· 2000-01-04
Petition for review (petitioner (American Petroleum Institute)) Granted

“arguing that the agency exceeded its statutory authority; we agree.”

A historical record

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