Thomas F. Hogan
How Judge Hogan rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Hogan no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Hogan
Thomas Francis Hogan served on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after receiving a commission from President Ronald Reagan on August 20, 1982. He became a senior judge on May 1, 2008, and had retired from case assignments by November 2024.
How Judge Hogan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Alton & Southern Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, he granted the railway coalition summary judgment on national bargaining. He applied the D.C. Circuit’s Atlantic Coast Line framework and his earlier decision on essentially the same dispute.
“Still bound to apply Atlantic Coast Line as the law of this Circuit, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court holds that BMWED is again required to bargain on a national basis with the railway coalition with respect to all issues in the current wage and rules movement that commenced on November 1, 2019.”
In Smith v. Holland, Hogan granted the manufacturer's summary judgment motion because the plaintiff's expert report did not address compliance with the contract specifications, and counsel's description of anticipated testimony could not create a fact dispute.
“His description of what his expert’s testimony will be does not replace the record evidence needed to survive a motion for summary judgment. ... Counsel’s claims that an expert will testify to a given fact does not create a genuine dispute of material facts sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.”
Procedural preferences
In Gunter v. United States Secret Service, Hogan dismissed a FOIA suit without prejudice because the agency had responded before suit and the requester had not shown that he exhausted the administrative appeal process.
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.”
In Smith v. Holland, Hogan noted that the plaintiff omitted a separate disputed-facts statement under Local Civil Rule 7(h). He still considered the contract issue because the opposition made the dispute clear and the filings were manageable.
“The plaintiff did not submit a separate statement setting forth the material facts that he disputes, violating Local Civil Rule 7(h) ... the Court ... ‘is to deem as admitted the moving party’s facts that are uncontroverted by the nonmoving party’s Rule [7(h)] statement.’”
In People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Perdue, he allowed an APA challenge to individual USDA license-renewal decisions to proceed in part while rejecting the challenge to the agency’s overall renewal process under the precedent governing that dispute.
“while PETA may not challenge the USDA’s overall process for approving license renewals, individual renewal decisions are reviewable.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court will grant the Carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 29] and deny BMWED’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 30].”
“the motion will be denied and a briefing schedule for dispositive motions will be set.”
“while PETA may not challenge the USDA’s overall process for approving license renewals, individual renewal decisions are reviewable. Upon such review, this Court will grant in part and deny in part the USDA’s motion to dismiss.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion to reconsider with prejudice, and the motion for leave to amend without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.”
“For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the amended complaint.”
“The Court will dismiss Mr. Hejeij’s delay and Fifth Amendment claims and grant summary judgment on all other claims.”
“the Court grants Defendants NCO Financial Systems, Inc.’s and Transworld Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 47] and Defendant Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates, P.C.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 48], and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ...”
“denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for Liability Against Transworld Systems, Inc. and NCO Financial Systems, Inc. [ECF No. 52] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for Liability Against Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates, P.C. [ECF No. 53].”
“For the forgoing reasons, the Court shall grant Plasser’s motion for summary judgment, and deny plaintiff’s motion to strike.”
“the Court denied the defendant’s motion by Order dated March 30, 2022”
“the Court rejects Weeks’ arguments on those grounds and now denies the Motion to Dismiss Count One in its entirety.”
“the Court hereby grants the defendants’ request.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- From the published-order sample (NOT a counted distribution): his D.D.C. docket spanned the full range of a generalist trial judge over 40+ years, Railway Labor Act / labor (Alton & Southern Railway v. BMWED), Medicare and other APA agency-review (Loma Linda v. Burwell; PETA v. Perdue), FOIA (Gunter v. Secret Service), national-security sanctions (Hejeij v. Gacki, OFAC SDGT), False Claims Act qui tam (Adams v. Dell), consumer/FDCPA (Michaels v. NCO), product-liability tort (Smith v. Holland), D.C.-employment (Lucas v. D.C.), civil forfeiture (United States v. $189,880.00; United States v. One 1998 Chevrolet), antitrust MDL (In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation), and federal criminal/narcotics matters.
- As Chief Judge (2001-2008) he coordinated the Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas cases and later issued individual detainee rulings; he also served on the FISC (2009-2016, presiding 2014-2016).
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Hogan was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2022.
| Motions pending more than six months | 13 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2022 | 13 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 9 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 16 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 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.
A historical record
Judge Hogan no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.