Ana C. Reyes
How Judge Reyes rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Reyes
Ana Cecilia Reyes is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Reyes received a commission on February 21, 2023.
Judge Reyes's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Reyes, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
For a civil submission totaling 50 pages or more with exhibits, send chambers two printed courtesy copies with ECF headers.
“Counsel for the moving party shall provide Chambers, not the Clerk’s Office, with two printed courtesy copies, with ECF headers, of any electronic submission that, along with exhibits, numbers fifty (50) pages or more in total length.”
Filing
Email proposed criminal orders to chambers as Word files; do not file them on the docket.
“Proposed orders should not be filed on the docket, even if the parties agree on the draft order. Instead, counsel must submit proposed orders to the Court by emailing a Microsoft Word version of the draft to [email protected].”
Motions
Request a pre-motion conference before a dispositive motion; the initial ECF notice may be no longer than four double-spaced pages.
“If a party wishes to file a dispositive motion, it must request that the Court schedule a pre-motion conference. To so request, the moving party shall submit a short notice via ECF, not to exceed four double-spaced pages in length,”
Sealing
Deliver a courtesy copy of a sealed criminal submission to chambers on the filing day.
“Parties must deliver a courtesy copy to chambers of any sealed submission on the day it is filed with the Court”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Reyes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Gaither v. Bernhardt, Reyes granted summary judgment to the Park Police on a promotion discrimination claim because Gaither presented no evidence that its stated reasons for selecting other applicants were pretextual.
“courts cannot second-guess employment decisions, ‘absent evidence of pretext or a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.’ ... Because a reasonable factfinder could not conclude these reasons are pretextual, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
In Talbott v. Trump, Reyes said the court must defer to military judgment, but examined the challenged policy’s stated rationale and found no supporting analysis or data before granting a preliminary injunction against the transgender service ban.
“Yes, the Court must defer. But not blindly.”
In an emergency environmental case, Judge Reyes temporarily halted further tree removal after finding that the agency likely had not completed the required review and that the loss of mature trees could not be repaired later. The order assessed likelihood of success and immediate harm; the merits remained open.
“NPS prepared neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment before implementing the TMP.”
In Patel v. Lyons, Judge Reyes granted administrative-law summary judgment where the agency’s own record contradicted its stated reason for ending a student’s status record. The same opinion denied the agency’s separate mootness motion after restoration of that record.
“The record ICE had before it when it terminated Plaintiff’s SEVIS record unambiguously contradicted its stated reasoning.”
In Wiggins v. Executive Office of the United States Attorneys, she upheld the agency’s records search but denied part of its summary judgment motion without prejudice because the withholding declarations did not adequately explain the claimed exemptions.
“Thus, summary judgment on the Exemption 5 withholdings is not warranted.”
In DC Preservation League v. Department of Interior, Reyes granted a preliminary injunction after finding likely success on a claim that the agency had split its larger park project into separate parts for environmental review. The court also found that loss of remaining trees posed irreparable harm and that no urgent removal was needed.
“Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA segmentation claim.”
Procedural preferences
In Chiesi USA v. Becerra, Reyes upheld a Medicaid drug rebate rule as the best reading of the statute and held that a related interpretive rule was exempt from notice and comment, granting summary judgment to the defendants.
“Because (1) the Final Rule reflects the best reading of the statute and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor constitutionally infirm, and (2) the subsequent interpretive rule is exempt from notice-and-comment procedures, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment ... and DENIES Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.”
In Page v. Biden, Reyes dismissed a D.C. resident's congressional representation suit without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, describing its legal arguments as wholly insubstantial while recognizing the weight of the policy questions.
“Plaintiff’s plea for representation raises weighty questions of fairness and democratic legitimacy. But those policy questions are beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. And, given Plaintiff’s wholly insubstantial legal arguments, so too is this case, which the Court dismisses without prejudice.”
In one public-records case, she upheld a search tailored to the requested agency records and declined to require speculative searches based on the requester’s preferred identifiers.
“Plaintiff’s personal search preferences cannot dictate the reasonableness of the scope of the SEC’s search.”
Cautions
In Talbott v. Trump, Judge Reyes granted preliminary relief on a Fifth Amendment challenge to a military-service policy. That decision turns on its record and procedural posture and does not establish how unrelated motions will be decided.
“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt. 23, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. 1, without prejudice.”
“The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motions to file first and second amended complaints, Dkts. 25 & 26;”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 22, and DENIES Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 24.”
“Because a reasonable factfinder could not conclude these reasons are pretextual, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“After the hearing, the Court GRANTED the Bellwether Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, Dkt. 40, and announced that an opinion would follow.”
“The Court agrees with Defendant and GRANTS its Motion for Summary Judgment. Dr. Mathur had unwanted physical contact with Plaintiff, yes. But no reasonable juror could conclude that his contact was so egregious as to create a hostile work environment.”
“those policy questions are beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. And, given Plaintiff’s wholly insubstantial legal arguments, so too is this case, which the Court dismisses without prejudice.”
“The Court has no trouble agreeing that the Air Force did not violate the Privacy Act. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 89, and DENIES Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 106.”
“The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 89, and DENIES Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 106.”
“Considering the full Record and for the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Renewed Application for Preliminary Injunction.”
“By accompanying Order, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for a Stay Under 5 U.S.C. § 705.”
“The District has the better interpretation. The Court therefore GRANTS the District’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 30, and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Declaratory Relief, and Permanent Injunction, Dkt. 26.”
“The Court therefore GRANTS the District’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 30, and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Declaratory Relief, and Permanent Injunction, Dkt. 26.”
“the Court TRANSFERS this case to the Eastern District of Virginia and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as moot.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 19. It DISMISSES this action with prejudice”
“Lastly, the Court denies Plaintiff leave to amend.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed matters include employment discrimination, privacy, administrative review, foreign-sovereign damages, arbitration, securities regulation, venue, and constitutional challenges to executive action. This qualitative description of selected litigated matters does not estimate the full caseload mix.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 21 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 38 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 39 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 47 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 50 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 35 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not for Judge Reyes: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 876 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,449 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 53.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,290 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,288 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,044 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,408 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,947 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,963 | 5.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Reyes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Reyes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Reyes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace