Christopher R. Cooper
How Judge Cooper rules, drawn from 48 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cooper
Christopher Reid Cooper is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Cooper received a commission on March 28, 2014.
Judge Cooper's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Cooper'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 Cooper decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Guarascio’s FOIA case, he treated unanswered issues as conceded but also examined the agency declaration before granting summary judgment.
“Hearing no response from Guarascio despite the Court’s order warning him of the consequences of staying mum, the Court will now treat the issues on which it previously reserved judgment as conceded. Yet, for the sake of completeness, the Court will delve into Mr. Seidel’s declaration and explain why the Bureau is entitled to summary judgment regardless.”
In Nwosu’s suit, he dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction even though the dismissal motion had been framed differently.
“For the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss the case. It will do so, however, because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
In CREW’s FEC suit, he rejected the agency’s proposed detour from the statutory remedy and granted summary judgment over the unexplained commissioner votes.
“The Court declines the FEC’s invitation to upset the statutory scheme that Congress designed. Because the commissioners’ failure to explain their votes was clearly unlawful, and the FEC has not justified departing from the path laid by the statute, the Court will grant CREW’s motion for summary judgment.”
In Pruitt v. District of Columbia, Cooper granted the District summary judgment on retaliation claims after finding that the former employee had offered no evidence linking her leave requests and discrimination charge to her termination beyond their timing.
“Because no reasonable jury could conclude that the District’s explanation for Pruitt’s termination was pretextual, it is entitled to summary judgment.”
In Steinarsdottir’s copyright case, Cooper rejected a lost sales damages theory because the plaintiff offered no evidence of reduced traffic, sales, or revenue after the alleged copying. He allowed a distinct lost license theory to reach trial.
“But there is nothing in the record to support this theory, such as evidence of decreased user traffic, lost sales, or lost revenue.”
Procedural preferences
In Moyler’s arbitration dispute, he granted the unopposed motion as conceded and also found the submitted materials showed an agreement to arbitrate.
“Although the Court instructed Moyler that if he failed to respond to Securitas’s motion, the Court may deem the matter conceded, Moyler has not opposed the motion. ... Accordingly, the Court will grant Securitas’s motion as conceded and because, on the Court’s own review of the materials submitted by Securitas, Moyler agreed to arbitrate the claims he now raises.”
In Wagner v. United States Solicitor General, he dismissed a pro se complaint without prejudice on initial review because it did not satisfy Rule 8 and could not compel a criminal investigation.
“For the stated reasons, the complaint, and this matter, are dismissed without prejudice.”
In Tax Analysts’ public records case, he gave the IRS an opportunity to explain whether any nonexempt portions could be released before considering inspection of the records in chambers.
“better approach is to first give the IRS an opportunity to reassess the issue of segregability and file a supplemental declaration or Vaughn index.”
Cautions
In Kroon v. Amtrak, he denied the employer’s summary-judgment motion after finding that evidence about a salary offer could allow a jury to reject its stated reason and find racial discrimination.
“ORDERED that [ECF 20] Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
In Beatty’s Kennedy Center case, he clarified that preliminary relief against the closure decision left authorized maintenance and repair work untouched.
“this preliminary relief should not be understood to enjoin the necessary maintenance and repair work that Congress authorized last June through its OBBBA appropriation.”
In consolidated hospital suits, he upheld dismissal of administrative appeals that challenged a Medicare payment rule before the hospitals received final payment notices.
“In short, an NPR must form the basis of a hospital’s DSH-related appeal.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that [14] Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that [21] Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Summary Judgment and a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the forgoing reasons, the Court will grant the FBI’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining issues.”
“For the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss the case. It will do so, however, because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
“It will also deny Nwosu leave to amend, deny Nwosu’s motion for sanctions, deny as moot the Four Seasons’ motion to strike Nwosu’s jury demand, and grant the Four Seasons’ motion to strike Nwosu’s notice of interlocutory appeal.”
“Heads or tails, the Department wins.”
“The Court needn’t pass on Hooker’s supposition that the official copy of the EEOC dismissal order he ultimately received is the record he originally sought. Either way, the agency is entitled to summary judgment.”
“the Court will grant CREW’s motion for summary judgment, declare the FEC’s dismissal contrary to law, and deny the FEC’s motion for voluntary remand.”
“the Court will affirm the Board’s dismissal, deny Atrium’s motion for summary judgment, and grant the government’s cross-motion.”
“Based on the evidence before the Court, a reasonable fact finder could reject Amtrak’s proffered justification for Kroon’s salary offer and instead find that Amtrak lowballed Kroon because of her race. Accordingly, the Court will deny Amtrak’s motion.”
“The Court will deny Zorn’s motion because he has not demonstrated irreparable harm, his request is overly burdensome, and the equities do not support granting extraordinary relief.”
“Because McCallister has identified no evidence indicating that the Service’s reasons for transferring her were pretextual, nor any proper comparator who received more favorable treatment, the Court will grant the motion.”
“The Court will therefore grant Securitas’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and stay the case.”
“The FBI’s Glomar response was proper. The Court will, accordingly, grant the FBI’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss the case.”
“Citing SafeLaunch’s lack of participation in this case since the withdrawal of its counsel, Safex moves for a default judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant its motion in part and deny it in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Recent sampled assignments are heavy on public-records and agency-review litigation, with additional civil-rights, employment, immigration, habeas, contract, motor-vehicle, and racketeering matters. The written-ruling sample also includes special education and high-profile Kennedy Center governance disputes. This is a qualitative description, 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 | 20 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 20 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 28 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 27 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 22 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 23 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 25 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 22 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| 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 Cooper: 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 Cooper with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cooper, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cooper's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace