Beryl A. Howell
How Judge Howell rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Howell
Beryl Alaine Howell is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Howell received a commission on December 27, 2010. Judge Howell assumed senior status on February 1, 2024.
Judge Howell's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Howell's own (checked October 8, 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 8, 2026).
How Judge Howell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In National Student Legal Defense Network’s FOIA case, she assessed the agency’s exemption justification under the standard that it appear logical or plausible.
“Ultimately, an agency’s justification for invoking a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears ‘logical’ or ‘plausible.”
In the Urban Sustainability Directors Network grant case, she found plaintiffs likely to succeed on challenges to several specific grant terminations, while finding insufficient support for the broader alleged termination policy.
“They are also likely to succeed in showing that the five grant terminations in the record were arbitrary and capricious (Count Four) ... despite plaintiffs not making a sufficient showing that the broader alleged policy and practice of arbitrarily terminating grants likely violates the APA.”
Procedural preferences
In Jennings’s case, she ordered the plaintiff to answer the pending motion and warned that nonresponse could lead to dismissal.
“The Court ordered the Plaintiff to file his opposition or other response to that motion ... warning that failure to respond to the motion carried with it the risk that the motion could be granted as conceded and this case dismissed.”
In Monbo’s second suit, she found that plaintiffs raised no new facts and that their new legal theory was barred by res judicata.
“Plaintiffs, having alleged ‘no new facts,’ are ‘simply raising a new legal theory,’ but ‘[t]his is precisely what is barred by res judicata.’”
In the Washington Lawyers’ Committee FOIA case, she found that combining dozens of unrelated requests had made the dispute overcomplicated and difficult to frame.
“Plaintiff has attempted to shoehorn dozens of unrelated FOIA requests into a single Complaint, and in so doing has made this case overcomplicated, with a moving target of issues to address for both opposing government counsel and this Court. This confusion stops with this decision.”
Cautions
In Monbo’s jurisdiction dispute, she found that the complaint alleged no connection to the District of Columbia beyond the plaintiffs’ citizenship.
“except for plaintiffs' alleged citizenship, no allegation in the Complaint has any relation to the District of Columbia.”
In Chang’s wage litigation, she condemned a disqualification motion used to distract opposing counsel and seek substantive concessions.
“This tactical use of a disqualification motion to distract plaintiffs’ counsel and extract substantive litigation concessions is unacceptable.”
An agency cannot moot out judicial review by voluntarily ceasing the challenged conduct mid-litigation: after GSA refunded ~$30M and moved to dismiss as moot, she denied the MTD and reached the merits of its audit authority.
“that agency cannot dodge judicial review of its power-grab so easily.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court will therefore grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss as conceded and dismiss this case, but will deny the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as moot, and will also terminate all other pending motions.”
“but will deny the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as moot, and will also terminate all other pending motions.”
“Accordingly, all the defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint are GRANTED, and plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's pending motions for reconsideration, to take judicial notice and to deny the defendants' Bill of Costs are DENIED.”
“Following in camera review of the disputed withheld records, for the reasons set forth below, summary judgment is granted to ED and denied to plaintiff.”
“For the reasons below, defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as to the policy or practice claim in Count II is granted.”
“the part of the pending motion to dismiss sixteen of the FOIA requests that appeared to be at issue in Count I but were not, including the fourteen requests on the Iowa Chart and FOIA Request Numbers 2020-02640 and 2020-01450 on the WLC Chart, is granted as conceded”
“Accordingly, for the reasons explained herein, Crowley's motion for speedy declaratory judgment is denied in part and granted in part, defendant's motion for partial judgment is granted, and defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Crowley's motion for speedy declaratory judgment is denied in part and granted in part, defendant's motion for partial judgment is granted, and defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Defendants have moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for summary judgment under Rule 56. ... For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted.”
“For the reasons explained below, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Defendants now move to dismiss, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ... For the reasons explained below, defendants' motion is granted.”
“For the reasons explained below, this Court grants the motion for preliminary injunction in part, denies it in part, and denies the motion for expedited discovery.”
“this Court grants the motion for preliminary injunction in part, denies it in part, and denies the motion for expedited discovery.”
“MWAA’s motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim, and plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is denied as futile.”
“plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as described in the Report and Recommendation”
“defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as described in the Report and Recommendation”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Recent sampled assignments include agency-review and public-records disputes, employment and wage claims, pharmaceutical regulation, environmental matters, prisoner mandamus, contracts, education, copyright, consumer protection, and executive-removal litigation. This qualitative view of the selected cases is not a complete nature-of-suit distribution.
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 | 15 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 18 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 126 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 121 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 112 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 104 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 86 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 Howell: 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 Howell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Howell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Howell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace