Trevor N. McFadden
How Judge McFadden decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In FOIA he protects genuinely pre-decisional, deliberative agency recommendations under Exemption 5 -- a subordinate's recommend-or-approve memo to a supervisor that the supervisor never endorsed is privileged -- but he conducts in camera review and confirms segregable portions were released before granting summary judgment.
“The memo represents a recommendary proposal from a subordinate to a supervisor about a policy decision still in the works. And despite the Center’s arguments to the contrary, there is no indication the Secretary agreed with or endorsed the reasoning contained in it. Such documents fall squarely within Exemption 5.”
In visa-delay mandamus suits he takes judicial notice of the State Department's online Visa Status Check at the motion-to-dismiss stage: if the tracker shows the application was already adjudicated/refused, the unreasonable-delay claim is dismissed -- and he will remind counsel of their Rule 11 duty of candor when the complaint says otherwise.
“review of the State Department’s Visa Status Check website shows that his application was refused ... The Court reminds counsel of their duty of candor.”
Procedural preferences
He decides motions to dismiss on materials he may judicially notice or that the plaintiff submits (a government website, a pro se plaintiff's own exhibits), using 'judicial common sense' rather than converting to summary judgment -- a scam's hallmarks in the plaintiff's screenshots defeat the claim.
“When evaluating the plausibility of pro se allegations, a court can move beyond the four corners of the initial pleading and consider exhibits submitted by the plaintiff “to clarify the allegations in the complaint.””
He enforces Local Civil Rule 7.1(h)/56: a summary-judgment opponent who fails to file a separate statement of disputed material facts has the movant's statement of facts treated as undisputed (he applies this even-handedly to pro se parties).
“Parks filed no such document, so the Court considers Giant’s statement of material facts undisputed.”
Cautions
An agency does not automatically win FOIA summary judgment: he will grant it only as to records adequately accounted for and DENY it as to an unproven exhaustion defense or inadequately justified withholdings, requiring the agency to renew with a better record.
“The Court grants BOP’s motion in part as to the four records it fully produced, but denies its motion as to exhaustion. Still, BOP may renew its motion for summary judgment within 30 days to show that it satisfied its FOIA obligations for the rest of Anthony’s request.”
He will reject a magistrate judge's recommendation on de novo review: in an IDEA case he declined to adopt an R&R recommending vacatur and remand, holding the parent had not met her burden to show a substantive denial of a free appropriate public education.
“a Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court remand the case for more administrative hearings. But because the parent failed to meet her burden ... this Court rejects her request for vacatur and remand.”
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 = 9 |
Granted: 5Granted in part: 1Denied: 3 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted: 4 | 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.
“Such documents fall squarely within Exemption 5. ... USCIS is thus entitled to summary judgment.”
“USCIS is thus entitled to summary judgment.”
“because she provides no proof of actual damages stemming from the alleged Privacy Act violation, the Court must grant the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment on that claim.”
“Giant moves for summary judgment. The Court will grant that motion because Parks did not face severe or pervasive mistreatment, and there are no facts connecting the conduct he complains about to protected activity.”
“But now the parties have each moved for summary judgment, and Jean-Baptiste comes to the Court empty-handed. So the Court must grant Booz Allen’s motion and end this case.”
“the Court must grant Booz Allen’s motion and end this case.”
“Because the record shows that the Government has, in fact, adjudicated his visa application and informed him of its decision, the Court will dismiss his suit.”
“because the parent failed to meet her burden of showing that her child’s substantive rights were violated during the administrative proceedings and then never supplemented the record here, this Court rejects her request for vacatur and remand.”
“this Court rejects her request for vacatur and remand.”
“The Complaint does not allow for an inference that Bradley entered a PCH sweepstake, won a sweepstake, or is otherwise entitled to anything from PCH. So the Court will dismiss her Complaint.”
“The Court grants BOP’s motion in part as to the four records it fully produced, but denies its motion as to exhaustion. Still, BOP may renew its motion for summary judgment within 30 days to show that it satisfied its FOIA obligations for the rest of Anthony’s request.”
“WCP moves to dismiss. The Court will grant the motion because most of Remus’s claims are precluded by its first suit and the rest fail to state a claim.”
“Because the Government has, in fact, given her an answer, the Court will dismiss this case.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sampled recent assignments (20 dockets, mostly filed 2026) show a notably MIXED criminal-and-civil docket -- distinct from the FOIA-dominated profile of some D.D.C. colleagues. A substantial CRIMINAL share (United States v. Morgan / Allen / Cunningham / Johnson, several 1:26-cr matters -- consistent with his prior AUSA/J6 work), FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (895 -- Judicial Watch v. EPA, Democracy Forward Foundation v. Election Assistance Commission, Organization of American Historians v. OMB, Tau v. USPS), immigration (465 -- An v. Rubio, Meng v. Edlow), and a commercial/employment tail: FLSA (710 -- Menchu Sum v. 786MM), ERISA (791 -- Corson v. Lincoln National Life), civil-rights jobs (442 -- Gonsalves v. SEC), personal injury (Burkett v. Wiley Rein), and motor-vehicle. This is a qualitative character sample, NOT a counted nature-of-suit distribution; the criminal + FOIA + employment mix is consistent with the reasoning-layer sample (FOIA, immigration, and employment opinions).