Mary Margaret Rowland
How Judge Rowland rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rowland
Mary Margaret Rowland is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Rowland received a commission on August 20, 2019.
Judge Rowland's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Rowland, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Conferences
File a joint initial status report of no more than five pages at least five business days before the hearing.
“At least five business days before the initial status, the parties must file a joint Initial Status Report, not to exceed five pages in length.”
Trial
Seek court permission before contacting jurors after trial.
“After the conclusion of a trial, no party, agent, or attorney shall communicate with any members of the petit jury before which the case was tried without first receiving permission of the Court.”
Other
Limit the respondent to 40 additional statements of fact unless given leave.
“The respondent shall be limited to 40 statements of undisputed material facts absent prior leave of Court.”
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 Rowland decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Full Circle Villagebrook v. Protech, Rowland denied dismissal of a contract suit because the complaint plausibly alleged that the plaintiff had exercised its purchase option. She left the parties’ dispute over the appraiser selection and any resulting breach for a later stage.
“Accepting Defendants’ version of the facts over the complaint’s allegations is not appropriate at this pleading stage.”
In Lisa D. v. Kijakazi, Rowland remanded a disability decision because the administrative law judge inadequately explained the treatment of a physician’s opinion, overlooked contrary examination evidence, and did not account for severe migraines in the residual functional capacity.
“the ALJ must identify the relevant evidence and build a 'logical bridge' between that evidence and the ultimate determination.”
Procedural preferences
When all federal claims are dismissed before trial she relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims rather than deciding them — seen in both Munn (MSJ) and Ambassador (MTD). Plan for state claims to return to state court, not be resolved federally, once the federal hook is gone.
“when a district court dismisses all of a plaintiff's federal claims, it should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims rather than resolving them on the merits.”
Per her standing case-procedures page: motions are NOT noticed for presentment (on a contested motion she enters a minute order setting a hearing or briefing schedule); she does not accept courtesy copies; PDFs must be text-searchable from the original word file; hearings are in person by default. She also actively encourages substantive speaking roles for junior attorneys, expressly allowing more than one lawyer per side to argue or examine.
“Judge Rowland encourages attorneys and their clients to provide substantive speaking opportunities to less experienced attorneys ... Judge Rowland allows more than one attorney per side to speak during any proceeding.”
Cautions
In one premises-liability ruling, a large puddle in a well-lit store was open and obvious, and a distraction occurring only as the shopper stepped into it did not support the distraction exception. Parties invoking an exception to an obvious hazard need record evidence that the distraction affected the plaintiff before the encounter.
“The puddle Lajeunesse slipped on was an open and obvious condition and the distraction exception does not apply.”
In Abubakar’s self-represented employment-discrimination case, Rowland rejected a challenge to the complaint as an unintelligible “shotgun” pleading. She nevertheless dismissed the discrimination claims because the alleged mistreatment was not tied to a protected characteristic, and dismissed the Title VII color claim for failure to exhaust it in the administrative charge.
“It is the because of connection that Abubakar is missing here.”
Sec. 1983 substantive-due-process 'state-created danger' claims need conscience-shocking conduct — at least deliberate indifference (conscious disregard of a known danger). Inadvertent or even grossly negligent conduct (e.g. an unredacted FOIA disclosure done by mistake) is not enough, and there is no Monell municipal liability without an underlying constitutional violation.
“Only conduct falling toward the more culpable end of the spectrum shall be found to shock the conscience.”
In one compassionate release order, the court enforced the requirement to present the same grounds to the prison before seeking relief in court. The defendant’s court motion relied on family circumstances different from those in his administrative request.
“He never asked the Bureau for release on these grounds.”
A party seeking arbitration can waive the right by pursuing a merits dismissal motion first and raising arbitration only after the court has ruled. In one class action, that sequence led the court to deny a later motion to compel arbitration.
“Walgreens had the obligation to assert its right to arbitration. It was not diligent in doing so, and thus waived its right to arbitrate.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to Counts I and II. Counts III through VII are dismissed without prejudice.”
“the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss [8] with prejudice.”
“For the stated reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [30] is denied.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [16] is granted and the Commissioner's Motion [24] is denied.”
“the Commissioner's Motion [24] is denied.”
“this Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss [51] the amended complaint [48]. This Court dismisses Count I with prejudice and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count II.”
“Walmart's partial motion to dismiss [20] is granted. Abubakar's claims for discrimination based on color, age, national origin, religion, and race are dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the reasons explained above, this Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. [27].”
“For the stated reasons, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz Group AG’s Motion to Compel Arbitration [25] is granted. This case is dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the stated reasons, Walmart’s motion for summary judgment [38] is granted. The puddle Lajeunesse slipped on was an open and obvious condition and the distraction exception does not apply.”
“For the stated reasons, MOO’s motion for summary judgment [133] is granted.”
“For the stated reasons, this Court denies Richard Carman’s motion for compassionate release.”
“denies Carmen’s motion for attorney representation.”
“For the stated reasons, Centrum’s Motion for Summary Judgment [54] is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 327.5 days (N = 16).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 235 days (N = 3).
Active Eastern Division (Chicago) civil + criminal docket. Sampled nature-of-suit mix spans employment / civil rights (Title VII, Sec. 1983), prisoner civil rights, consumer (FCRA/TCPA), Schedule A IP-counterfeiting, product liability, contract/commercial, labor (FLSA), and Social Security appeals.
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 77 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 77 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 14 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 21 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 19 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 24 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 34 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 40 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 34 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 31 |
| Sep 2021 | 17 | 32 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 28 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 19 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, not for Judge Rowland: 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 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,300 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,558 | 5.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 305 | 12.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 42 | 49.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,700 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 7,093 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,841 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,703 | 15.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,046 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,134 | 7.4 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 Rowland with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rowland, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rowland's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace