Richard J. Leon
How Judge Leon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In APA review he will vacate agency action where the agency changed its methodology without acknowledging the change or giving fair notice -- a failure-of-reasoned-decisionmaking / due-process theory can win summary judgment for the regulated party even against a technical agency like the FDA.
“the FDA's determination of the regulatory review period for the drug at issue was arbitrary and capricious and violated due process principles because the FDA changed its methodology for determining a drug's regulatory review period without acknowledging that it was doing so or providing fair notice to plaintiffs.”
In FOIA he holds the government to the post-FOIA-Improvement-Act foreseeable-harm standard for Exemption 5: deliberative-process withholdings survive only where the agency shows disclosure would foreseeably harm its internal deliberations (here, a draft OIG report survived after a remand narrowed the dispute to that one document).
“whether the Government can demonstrate that it properly withheld under Exemption 5—the deliberative-process privilege—a draft of the September 2016 Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) Report because it reasonably foresees that its disclosure would harm its internal deliberations.”
Procedural preferences
He scrutinizes settlement attorney-fee components before entering an agreed dismissal: even an unopposed joint settlement will be rejected if he finds the negotiated fee award unreasonable. Counsel should expect their fee request to be examined on its own merits, not rubber-stamped.
“I find that the attorney fees agreed to by the parties in this case are not reasonable, and therefore will DENY the parties' request to incorporate their agreement into a final order of dismissal.”
He resolves jurisdiction first and treats the rest as moot: where a mandamus claim fails for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction he dismisses it and denies the related summary-judgment motions as moot, reaching only the claim that survives (here, replevin). Frame the jurisdictional hook carefully.
“I DISMISS plaintiff's mandamus claim for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENY as moot plaintiffs partial motion for summary judgment.”
Cautions
This written-opinion sample is posture-diverse but does NOT capture this judge's most consequential rulings, which should be read alongside it: he held the NSA's bulk-telephony-metadata program likely unconstitutional and enjoined it (Klayman v. Obama, 2013; later reversed/remanded on standing), approved the AT&T-Time Warner merger over a DOJ antitrust challenge (United States v. AT&T, 2018), adjudicated dozens of Guantanamo habeas petitions (Boumediene v. Bush originated before him), and struck down Executive Order 14250 targeting the WilmerHale law firm as retaliatory and unconstitutional (2025).
“I will grant Larry Klayman's and Charles Strange's request for an injunction and enter an order that (1) bars the Government from collecting, as part of the NSA's Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their personal Verizon accounts”
He frames his opinions as balancing national security against individual liberty and signals discomfort when forced to dismiss on procedural grounds -- a pattern visible from the NSA cases through the Klayman metadata dismissals (dismissed for lack of standing/jurisdiction while voicing concern about the underlying balance).
“This Court, in the final analysis, has no choice but to dismiss these cases for plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate the necessary jurisdiction to proceed. ... I do so today, however, well aware that I will not be the last District Judge who will be required to determine the appropriate balance between our national security and privacy interests during this never-ending war on terror.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 10 |
Granted: 3Granted in part: 2Denied: 3Moot / procedural: 2 | 50% granted |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Joint motion to dismiss N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth below, I will GRANT defendants' motion to dismiss and DENY AS MOOT plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.”
“For the reasons set forth below, I will GRANT defendants' motion to dismiss and DENY AS MOOT plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.”
“the Court will GRANT plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY the FDA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that the FDA's determination of the regulatory review period for the drug at issue was arbitrary and capricious and violated due process principles”
“the Court will GRANT plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY the FDA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment”
“For the following reasons, I will GRANT the Government's motion to dismiss.”
“the defendants' motion is GRANTED and the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.”
“the defendants' motion is GRANTED and the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.”
“For the following reasons, Manigault Newman's motion will be DENIED, and the Government's motion will be GRANTED.”
“For the following reasons, Manigault Newman's motion will be DENIED, and the Government's motion will be GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated herein, the Court will GRANT in part and DENY in part George's motion.”
“I DISMISS plaintiff's mandamus claim for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENY as moot plaintiffs partial motion for summary judgment.”
“I DENY IN PART defendants' summary judgment motion as moot as to the mandamus claim and GRANT IN PART defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's replevin claim.”
“I find that the attorney fees agreed to by the parties in this case are not reasonable, and therefore will DENY the parties' request to incorporate their agreement into a final order of dismissal.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
From the search_dockets case-level enumeration plus the reasoning-layer sample (NOT a counted distribution): his currently-assigned docket is APA/agency-review heavy (Gordon v. Blanche, Dunn v. Trump), with FOIA/government-transparency (CREW v. DOJ; the read sample includes Reporters Committee v. FBI), a criminal calendar (United States v. Simmons, United States v. Fox), a foreign-sovereign arbitration-award enforcement matter (Infracapital F1 v. Kingdom of Spain), immigration (Quiroz Zapata), and tort/contract (O'Neal v. Rasier/Uber; the read sample includes George v. Allen Martin Ventures). Nationally he is associated with the NSA bulk-metadata litigation (Klayman v. Obama), the AT&T-Time Warner antitrust trial, the Boumediene/Guantanamo habeas petitions, and WilmerHale v. Executive Office of the President.