Sarah Elisabeth Geraghty
How Judge Geraghty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the equal-protection challenge to Georgia's categorical hormone-therapy prohibition, she tested the asserted state interests against the evidentiary record and required a close fit between those interests and the law's scope; evidence about risks, benefits, professional debate, and alleged malfeasance did not justify the categorical ban.
“In light of what the evidence has shown about (1) the risks and benefits of the treatment, (2) the strength of evidence supporting it and the state of debate over gender-affirming care, (3) and alleged instances of malfeasance in the administration of that care, there is no ‘close means-ends fit’ between SB 140’s sex-based ban and the state’s asserted interests.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Emergency Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“their Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with a contract against AX Holdings Inc. and Nest Financial Services LLC, which is dismissed with prejudice. The motion is denied with respect to all other claims.”
“The Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docs. 49, 59) are DENIED.”
“That motion is DENIED AS MOOT because the Court requires no further information regarding the notice of appeal given its November 10 order (Doc. 107).”
“Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 62) is DENIED.”
In a TVPRA hotel sex-trafficking civil-beneficiary case under 18 U.S.C. 1595(a), Geraghty's pretrial memorandum held that the statute authorizes punitive damages because the claim sounds in tort with 'an element of outrage,' following Ditullio and Francisco while distinguishing Barnes v. Gorman. It also held that the plaintiff could play the defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition video at trial regardless of the deponent's availability under Rule 32(a)(3) and Coughlin. The memorandum did not resolve a party motion.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted with respect to Counts I through V and VII of the Second Amended Complaint, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is denied with respect to Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk is DIRECTED to DISMISS all defendants except for Defendants Harmon and Feldman in their individual capacities.”
“the Court OVERRULES Mr. Holder's objections (Doc. 60, 61) and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&Rs (Doc. 55, 56). Mr. Holder's motions to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 29) and to suppress evidence (Doc. 30) are DENIED.”
“the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections (Doc. 35), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 33), and DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 21).”
“the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 28) and DENIES Mr. Rodriguez-Soto's motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 20, 24).”
“the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Doc. 86.) Defendant's motions to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 22, 24), to suppress evidence (Doc. 23), and to suppress in-court and out-of-court identification (Doc. 73) are DENIED.”
“Defendant Tait's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 44) is GRANTED. ... Defendant Tait is DISMISSED from the case.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 40) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Movant's amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (Doc. 46) is DENIED, and the original § 2255 motion (Doc. 44) is DENIED AS MOOT. A certificate of appealability is DENIED because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and resolution of the issues presented is not debatable.”
“Movant's amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (Doc. 46) is DENIED, and the original § 2255 motion (Doc. 44) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 36). Mr. Jones's motion to dismiss the indictment, (Doc. 30), is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
General civil docket: a heavy consumer credit-reporting cluster (Equifax/Experian), plus product liability, qui tam, trade-secret, trafficking, wage-and-hour, immigration, insurance, and employment cases. Referral magistrates seen on her dockets include Catherine M. Salinas, John K. Larkins III, Christopher C. Bly, J. Elizabeth McBath, and Lawrence R. Sommerfeld.
Put Judge Geraghty's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Geraghty actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Geraghty's own signed orders and cites them.