Richard J. Leon
How Judge Leon rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Leon
Richard J. Leon is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Leon received a commission on February 19, 2002. Judge Leon assumed senior status on December 31, 2016.
Judge Leon's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Leon'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 Leon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mashatti v. Lyons, he set aside the student's SEVIS termination under the APA because the government did not satisfactorily explain reliance on a dismissed driving-under-the-influence charge.
“The Government has not provided any ‘satisfactory explanation’ for why it terminated plaintiff’s SEVIS record based on a 2022 driving-under-the-influence charge that never resulted in a conviction.”
In Nb v. District of Columbia, he certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class in a Medicaid notice suit because the class was cohesive enough for an injunction that could provide the requested relief while complying with Rule 65(d).
“the class is sufficiently cohesive that the Court can fashion an injunction which provides the relief sought and complies with Rule 65(d).”
In Nissan Chemical v. FDA, he granted the plaintiffs summary judgment because the FDA changed its regulatory-review-period methodology without acknowledging the change or giving fair notice.
“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 Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. FBI, he evaluated the FBI's Exemption 5 withholding of a draft OIG report after remand, including whether disclosure would foreseeably harm internal deliberations, and granted the agency summary judgment.
“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
In Hargrove v. Medstar Washington Hospital Center, he excluded an expert's undisclosed causation testimony; without the needed causation evidence, the medical-malpractice plaintiff could not avoid summary judgment.
“Plaintiff did not disclose Dr. Schulman as a causation expert”
In Chase v. WMATA, Leon granted WMATA's unopposed partial motion to dismiss under Local Civil Rule 7(b) and also found that the complaint failed to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
“Due to the tension between Local Civil Rule 7(b) ... and Rule 12(b)(6) ... courts also typically evaluate the merits”
In Dimaio v. Wolf, he declined to incorporate a joint settlement into a dismissal order because he found the agreed attorney-fee amount unreasonable.
“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.”
In Solomon v. Garland, he dismissed the mandamus claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the plaintiff's related summary-judgment motion as moot; the replevin claim remained for decision.
“I DISMISS plaintiff's mandamus claim for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENY as moot plaintiffs partial motion for summary judgment.”
In one transit-negligence suit, he required expert testimony to establish the national standard of care; the agency’s own operating procedures did not supply that standard by themselves.
“internal SOPs and manuals cannot on their own establish the national standard of care.”
In United States v. Grabinski, Leon dismissed a second indictment with prejudice under Rule 48(b) after finding repeated government delay and prejudice to the defendant.
“defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the indictment is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice!”
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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“motion for summary judgment is DENIED IN PART as moot as to plaintiff's mandamus claim. Finally, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART as to plaintiffs 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.”
“the Court will GRANT the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.”
“defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to excuse compliance with Local Civil Rule 7(n) are GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to excuse compliance with Local Civil Rule 7(n) are GRANTED”
“I GRANT defendants’ motion to dismiss”
“DENY plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction”
“DENY plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.”
“I will therefore GRANT plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and appoint plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 272 days (N = 9).
- The available case-level records are not a counted distribution.
- His current docket includes substantial agency-review and government-transparency litigation, a criminal calendar, foreign-sovereign arbitration enforcement, immigration matters, and tort and contract disputes.
- His longer-term caseload has included the NSA bulk-metadata litigation, the AT&T-Time Warner antitrust trial, Guantanamo habeas petitions, and a constitutional challenge involving the WilmerHale law firm.
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 | 7 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 15 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 7 | 15 |
| Sep 2025 | 6 | 21 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 18 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 15 |
| Mar 2024 | 13 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 14 |
| Mar 2023 | 9 | 13 |
| Sep 2022 | 5 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 15 |
| Sep 2021 | 10 | 21 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 19 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 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 Leon: 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 Leon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Leon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Leon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace