Reggie B. Walton
How Judge Walton rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Walton
Reggie B. Walton is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Walton received a commission on September 24, 2001. Judge Walton assumed senior status on December 31, 2015.
Judge Walton's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Walton, 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.
- General Order and Guidelines for Civil Cases ↗
- General Order for Criminal Cases ↗
- Order for Initial Scheduling Conference ↗
Key rules
Filing
Send a courtesy copy of a civil filing over 20 pages, including exhibits, when it is filed.
“The parties are instructed to provide a courtesy copy of any filing that exceeds twenty (20) pages, including exhibits and, if applicable, the administrative record, to the Court’s chambers upon filing.”
Motions
Absent a last-minute emergency, file criminal-case extension motions at least four days before the deadline.
“Absent a last-minute emergency that necessitates the need for an extension, any motions for an extension of time shall be filed at least four (4) days prior to the deadline the motion is seeking to extend.”
Discovery
Confer in good faith over a civil discovery dispute, then contact chambers for a phone conference if it remains unresolved.
“counsel are required to confer in good faith in an effort to resolve any discovery dispute before bringing it to the Court’s attention. See Local Civ. R. 7(m). If, in what should be the unusual situation, counsel are unable to resolve their dispute, counsel shall contact chambers to arrange for a telephone conference with the Court.”
Discovery
Counsel must try to resolve criminal discovery disputes informally.
“The Court requires counsel to meet and confer to attempt to resolve all discovery disputes informally.”
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 Walton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Almas v. Ad Hoc LLC, he denied dismissal of an Equal Pay Act claim because the plaintiff plausibly alleged substantially similar work; the comparator question could be developed in discovery.
“the Court cannot dismiss [the plaintiff’s] equal pay claims before giving her an opportunity to make [her] case”
A government's voluntary change does not moot a challenge when its assurance is qualified and leaves a realistic possibility of recurrence; saying there are merely 'no plans' to repeat the challenged action was insufficient in a SEVIS-record case.
“Rather than ‘requiring’ or ‘mandating’ a change, Mr. Watson’s declaration states only that ICE currently has ‘no plans’ to re-terminate the plaintiff’s SEVIS record”
In Webuild S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, he granted the award creditor judgment on the pleadings in an ICSID award enforcement action after rejecting Argentina's time-bar defense and noting its concession on subject-matter jurisdiction.
“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the plaintiff’s motion.”
In backpage.com, LLC v. Lynch, he granted the government's Rule 12(b)(1) motion in a pre-enforcement challenge to the SAVE Act because the plaintiff lacked standing.
“For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this case on the basis that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this matter.”
Procedural preferences
In Almas v. Ad Hoc LLC, he held that disputes over the plaintiff's job comparators did not defeat her Equal Pay Act claim at the pleading stage, while noting those arguments might carry more weight later in the case.
“Although these cases may be more persuasive at a later point in the litigation, they do not defeat the plaintiff’s claims at this point”
In FOIA summary-judgment practice, generalized declarations and a sparse Vaughn index may be insufficient. He denied withholding without prejudice and required a fuller, document-specific explanation before reconsidering the issue.
“The Court directs the defendant to supplement its motion for summary judgment regarding the full withholding of these four pages pursuant to Exemption 5”
In Emanuel v. Department of Justice, he treated the pro se plaintiff's failure to oppose a dispositive motion by the deadline as a concession after a prior order expressly warned of that consequence.
“that Order expressly warned the plaintiff that, if he failed to file his opposition by February 3, 2012, the Court would treat the motion as conceded. ... Accordingly, the Court will treat this motion as conceded.”
In True the Vote v. IRS, he allowed a media organization to intervene and unsealed charging-lien filings after weighing the public-access interest under the Hubbard factors.
“the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the CIR’s motion.”
In the employment pleading dispute, Walton considered public discrimination-charge records at the dismissal stage and declined to turn the District’s alternative request into summary judgment. Counsel should distinguish public records the court can notice from outside evidence that would require conversion.
“without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the plaintiff’s motion.”
“the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
“the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must deny the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees as to Ms. Gatore.”
“To date, the plaintiff neither has filed an opposition nor requested additional time to do so. Accordingly, the Court will treat this motion as conceded.”
“Upon careful consideration of the CIR’s submissions, the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the CIR’s motion.”
“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the government’s motion.”
“the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary declaratory judgment.”
“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the defendant’s motion.”
“the Court concludes for the following reasons that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants and dismisses these claims consistent with the reasoning articulated in its May 6, 2020 Memorandum Opinion.”
“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant the defendant’s motion.”
“For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this case on the basis that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this matter.”
“the Court concludes that it must grant in part and deny in part the defendants’ motion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The available case-level records are not a counted distribution.
- His current civil docket includes substantial public-records litigation, employee-benefit and health-program matters, consumer-credit disputes, other statutory actions, and a criminal calendar.
- The written-opinion sample also includes federal employment, agency review, tax disclosure, immigration, arbitration-award enforcement, and private commercial disputes.
- His longer-term caseload has included nationally prominent criminal, surveillance, habeas, and government-transparency matters.
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 | 37 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 30 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 37 | 30 |
| Sep 2025 | 34 | 18 |
| Mar 2025 | 28 | 24 |
| Sep 2024 | 20 | 28 |
| Mar 2024 | 28 | 33 |
| Sep 2023 | 21 | 27 |
| Mar 2023 | 18 | 28 |
| Sep 2022 | 14 | 38 |
| Mar 2022 | 22 | 36 |
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 32 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 30 |
| Sep 2020 | 9 | 18 |
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 Walton: 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 Walton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Walton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Walton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace