Julie Rebecca Rubin
How Judge Rubin rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rubin
Julie Rebecca Rubin is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Rubin received a commission on March 30, 2022.
Judge Rubin's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Rubin's own (checked October 9, 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 9, 2026).
- Order 2026-05: Redacted Filings in FRCP 5.2(c) Cases ↗
- Order 2026-03: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Order 2025-05: Procedures for the Filing of Sealed Documents ↗
- Amended Order 2021-13: Removal Actions ↗
- Amended Order 2022-04: Social Security Cases ↗
- Second Amended Order 2021-02: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Order 2020-01: Discovery in Criminal Cases ↗
- Order 2018-07: Amicus Briefs ↗
- Order 2018-08: Service of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment ↗
- Second Amended Order 2025-01: Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus—Alien Detainee ↗
- Order 2024-01: Deficiency Notices ↗
How Judge Rubin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Owens v. O'Malley, she granted leave to amend early in the case and denied the pending dismissal motion as moot, leaving merits objections for a motion directed at the amended complaint.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) shall be, and is hereby, GRANTED”
In one consumer-credit dispute, she enforced the parties’ arbitration agreement after finding that the claims fell within its scope and that the defendant had preserved its right to arbitrate.
“For the reasons set forth herein, by separate order, the Motion will be granted.”
Cautions
In Knight v. Watts, she dismissed an access-to-courts claim because the detainee showed no actual injury and had been able to file competent papers in his other federal case.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted”
In a request to halt an ongoing state child-custody case, the court applied abstention principles and denied emergency relief where the applicants had not shown that federal intervention was likely to succeed.
“Plaintiffs fail to meet the standard for a temporary restraining order (and preliminary injunction) pursuant to Rule 65.”
In one challenge to an administrative subpoena for sensitive medical records, she required a legitimate investigative purpose and held that the subpoena’s breadth and privacy intrusion warranted quashing it.
“For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED. A separate order follows.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted”
“Plaintiff's request for discovery and Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint are denied”
“the alternative motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Clerk Is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants Gail Watts and Jebboe Sherman”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that the Motion (ECF No. 88) shall be, and is hereby, DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 12) will be granted”
“the Government's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 89) will be granted in part and denied in part”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment shall be granted; ... summary judgment is entered in favor of the remaining Defendants”
“King's Motions for Appropriate Relief (ECF 49) and for Injunction (ECF 50) are denied”
“Defendants' Motions (ECF Nos. 13 & 14) will be granted, and Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) will be dismissed”
“Having found no basis for federal habeas corpus relief, the petition shall be denied”
“Alward's Motions for Injunctive Relief, Summary Judgment, and a Hearing are denied”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) shall be, and is hereby, GRANTED”
“the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment at ECF No. 14 shall be, and is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Compliant (ECF No. 50) shall be, and is hereby, GRANTED”
“the Motion to Dismiss at ECF No. 30 is DENIED AS MOOT”
“the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 83 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 216 days (N = 14).
The sampled matters include insurance disputes, administrative review, employment and prisoner civil-rights cases, collateral attacks on criminal convictions, consumer disputes, and immigration petitions. The three supplemental April 2022 cases all ended. The cases were selected for readable motion timelines and do not describe the full docket.
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 | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
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 Maryland, not for Judge Rubin: 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 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 151 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,564 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 457 | 13.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 19 | 33.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,119 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,370 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,053 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,629 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,469 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,709 | 7.9 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 Rubin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rubin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rubin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace