John D. Bates
How Judge Bates rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bates
John D. Bates is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Bates received a commission on December 14, 2001. Judge Bates assumed senior status on October 12, 2014.
Judge Bates's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bates'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 Bates decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In NAACP v. Trump and the related Princeton case, he refused to reconsider vacatur of the DACA rescission because a later agency memorandum repackaged rejected reasons, offered a new post hoc rationale, and failed to address reliance interests.
“because ‘an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself,’ Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 50 (1983), DHS also cannot rely on new reasons that it now articulates for the first time.”
In Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management, he vacated agency directives removing health webpages after finding the agencies' implementation of an executive order failed to meet their obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act.
“The problem here is not so much the underlying policy decision but rather compliance with the law in effectuating that decision. ... Because the agencies failed to adhere to those obligations here, the Court will vacate their directives.”
In a royalty-deduction case, the court set aside part of an agency decision after the agency departed from its prior position without acknowledging the change. An administrative challenge should identify the prior policy and the unexplained departure.
“ONRR’s failure to acknowledge the Director’s policy shift—either in the Director’s decision, or in its motion to this Court—establishes the arbitrariness of the decision to disallow the deduction of any of the compression costs Ovintiv incurred in its Self-Serviced Fields, and thus the failure to comply with the APA.”
Procedural preferences
In American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor, he denied a preliminary injunction against access to sensitive agency data because the plaintiffs had not shown imminent misuse or public disclosure before a merits ruling.
“Absent evidence those personnel will imminently misuse or publicly disclose that information, the Court cannot say that irreparable harm will clearly occur before the Court can make a final determination on the merits. ... the Court’s concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs’ harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits.”
In Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari, he denied a Rule 54(b) request for immediate appeal because the resolved claim was not distinct from the remaining contract claim and the balance of judicial administration did not favor early judgment.
“Because the breach of contract claim is not a ‘distinct’ claim within the meaning of Rule 54(b), and because the balance of sound judicial administration and of justice to the litigants does not favor entry of an order of final judgment prior to resolution of the remaining claim, the Court will deny Zaccari’s Rule 54(b) motion.”
In Kumar v. George Washington University, he treated the university's official-immunity argument as a merits defense under Rule 12(b)(6), rather than a limit on subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
“courts treat official immunity as ‘an affirmative defense’ justifying dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1). ... The Court will therefore treat GW’s purported immunity as a defense on the merits, not a limit on the Court’s jurisdiction.”
In Informed Consent Action Network v. FDA, he extended a FOIA stay for six months after finding exceptional workload and diligence, while requiring the parties to propose a processing schedule before the stay expired.
“Defendants continue to face exceptional circumstances and to exercise due diligence and are thus entitled to a stay under Section 552(a)(6)(C)(i).”
Cautions
In one foreign-instrumentality service dispute, the court rejected mailing process to a foreign embassy because the proposed procedure made the embassy an agent for service. Counsel should identify a different lawful method and show how it will give actual notice.
“This procedure functionally makes the embassy an agent for service and thus violates the Vienna Convention on plaintiff’s own reading.”
In the pension-fund default case, he denied equitable relief that differed from the relief requested in the complaint.
“Because plaintiffs’ request for equitable relief differs in kind and scope from the relief demanded in the complaint, that request will be denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motion to revise the Court’s April 2018 order will therefore be denied, and the Court’s vacatur of DACA’s rescission will stand.”
“Because the agencies failed to adhere to those obligations here, the Court will vacate their directives.”
“At this time, however, the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction is not warranted.”
“For the reasons explained below, the Court disagrees and will accordingly grant the Agency’s motion for summary judgment and deny HSS’s motion for summary judgment.”
“the Court disagrees and will accordingly grant the Agency’s motion for summary judgment and deny HSS’s motion for summary judgment.”
“the Court will grant in part and deny in part each of the parties’ motions, granting summary judgment for defendants and intervenors on all but one claim.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Eaves’s motion.”
“The Court now resolves a motion for default judgment by another 197 plaintiffs. It grants the motion for and awards damages to those plaintiffs whose claims the Court has power to adjudicate.”
“the Court will deny Zaccari’s Rule 54(b) motion. Furthermore, the Court will deny as moot Zaccari’s motion to stay proceedings pending appeal.”
“Before the Court are Daily Caller’s motion to dismiss and motion to refer RWM’s copyright registrations to the Register of Copyrights. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny both motions.”
“The Court will grant summary judgment to DHS on the second basis.”
“the university’s motion to dismiss on the ground of official immunity succeeds in disposing of Kumar’s claim for tortious interference with business relations, but there is no immunity as to his other four claims. And his tortious invasion of privacy claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. But the university’s motion to dismiss will be denied in part because Kumar has pled sufficient facts to state a claim for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
“the Court will respectively dismiss and strike those demands, the rest of Santos’s claims live on.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled dockets include agency-review and public-records cases, international arbitration, civil-rights claims, copyright and antitrust matters, Social Security appeals, habeas petitions, and federal criminal cases. This selection does not measure the distribution of the judge’s full caseload.
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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 7 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Bates: 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 Bates with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bates, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bates's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace