Trevor N. McFadden
How Judge McFadden rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McFadden
Trevor Neil McFadden is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge McFadden received a commission on October 31, 2017.
Judge McFadden's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge McFadden'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 McFadden decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Center for Immigration Studies v. Department of Homeland Security, he reviewed a USCIS recommendation memo in camera and held it protected by FOIA Exemption 5; he also found foreseeable harm and adequate release of segregable portions.
“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 Sedaghatdoust v. Blinken, he took judicial notice of the State Department's visa tracker, found the application had already been refused, dismissed the visa-delay suit, and reminded counsel of the duty of candor.
“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
In Bradley v. Publishers Clearing House, he considered screenshots submitted by the pro se plaintiff when assessing the complaint. The screenshots did not plausibly show that she had entered or won a sweepstakes, so he dismissed 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.’”
In Parks v. Giant Food Store, he treated the employer’s facts as undisputed where the plaintiff filed no separate statement of disputed material facts.
“the Court considers Giant’s statement of material facts undisputed.”
In Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, he allowed the plaintiff to supplement a FOIA complaint after a minor timing error in exhaustion, finding that the agency had time to respond and faced no prejudice.
“The Court finds supplementation appropriate here.”
Cautions
In Anthony v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, he granted FOIA summary judgment in part for records produced in full but denied it on exhaustion, allowing the agency to renew its motion with a fuller showing.
“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.”
In Lattisaw v. District of Columbia, he rejected a magistrate judge's recommendation to remand an IDEA case because the parent had not shown 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.”
In a pro se complaint about the disclosure of investigative material, the court required the plaintiff to identify a legal claim. Allegations of harm and requests for remedies did not give the defendants adequate notice of the claim against them.
“Browder has not specified what law the Department allegedly violated.”
In Aaronson, McFadden split the Freedom of Information Act cross-motions by request. He accepted some agency searches but required an additional search of internal communications the agency had omitted.
“that the FBI’s search as to items 6 through 26 was inadequate due to the FBI’s refusal to search the UCRC communications;”
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.”
After notice and an opportunity to respond, the court imposed a prefiling injunction on a serial litigant whose repeated suits recycled meritless claims. Future filings in the district require leave and strict compliance with the injunction. No party motion was resolved.
“Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence is therefore DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The twenty sampled recent assignments include criminal prosecutions, public-records actions, immigration matters, and employment and commercial disputes. This is a qualitative view of those assignments, not a courtwide case-type distribution.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 5 |
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 McFadden: 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 McFadden with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McFadden, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McFadden's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace