Alex Robert Munson

How Judge Munson rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Munson no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.

Court
District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
Position
District judge
Status
Deceased
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
November 18, 1988
Education
Long Beach State College, B.A. in Education, 1964; Long Beach State College, M.A. in Education, 1965; University of Southern California, Ed.D. in Higher Education, 1970; Loyola Law School, J.D., 1975
Signed orders read
10

About Judge Munson

Alex R. Munson served as chief judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands after his appointment in 1988 and was reappointed in 1998. He took senior status in 2010 and retired in 2025. Before joining that court, he was chief justice of the High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

How Judge Munson decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Munson rejected a filing barrier that treated nonimmigrant workers differently when the restriction had no rational connection to a legitimate territorial interest.

“No rational basis has been advanced for abrogating the right of access to the courts by nonimmigrant alien workers.”

Munson required compelling, case-specific reasons before overriding public access to documents that were integral to the dispute.

“Plaintiffs fear of being the target of criminal activity based on his tax records is not a sufficiently compelling reason to outweigh the public’s interest in access to judicial records.”

Procedural preferences

Munson assessed abstention by weighing the combined practical and legal circumstances rather than treating any single factor as controlling.

“More important than any one factor alone, moreover, is the totality of the circumstances.”

Munson treated credibility and coercion as evidence-dependent questions and applied an objective test absent proof of unusual susceptibility.

“whether police techniques were coercive is objective.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Commonwealth v. Tenorio
· 1989-03-14
Appeal (criminal defendant) Denied

“The trial court's conviction is AFFIRMED”

Commonwealth v. Bordallo
· 1989-05-08
Appeal (condemned landowners) Denied

“Borciallo's claims of error as to the valuation fixed by the trial court, and the court's methods of fixing it, must be rejected.”

Commonwealth v. Pangelinan
· 1989-06-01
Appeal (criminal defendant) Granted in part

“For the following reasons, we now affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for sentencing.”

Tran v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
· 1991-11-27
Motions to dismiss (territorial government officials) Granted

“Therefore, this court has no subject matter jurisdiction and the § 1983 claim is DISMISSED.”

Yang v. American International Knitters Corp.
· 1992-03-31
Motions to dismiss (employers) Denied

“AIKC’s alternative motion to dismiss pendent claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies on the basis of that statute is DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (employers) Denied

“Accordingly, because Plaintiffs are not acting in a representative capacity, Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case for failure to file a written ‘consent’ is DENIED.”

In re Realty Trust Corp.
· 1992-06-30
Motions to dismiss (court, sua sponte) Granted

“Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.”

Motion for sanctions (debtor) Denied

“Realty Trust’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.”

Rayphand v. Sablan
· 1999-05-05
Summary judgment (voters challenging senate apportionment) Denied

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and, Intervenor Eleventh Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as moot.”

Summary judgment (election officials and government intervenors) Granted
Judgment on the pleadings (territorial legislature) Moot / procedural
Baldwin v. United States
· 2010-04-22
Motion to seal (tax-refund plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED and the exhibit attached to the complaint shall be UNSEALED.”

Lu v. Star Marianas Air, Inc.
· 2015-05-12
Motions to dismiss (airline and related companies) Granted

“The SMA Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted;”

Motions to strike (airline and related companies) Granted

“The SMA Defendants’ motion to strike is granted, and paragraph 25 is stricken;”

United States v. Jucutan
· 2016-05-26
Motion to suppress (criminal defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to suppress statements”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled historical matters included civil-rights, labor, contract, property, personal-liability, and government-defendant disputes, but the empty or mismatched timelines support no motion-rate or timing analysis.

Pending matters in the official report

Judge Munson was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2025.

Motions pending more than six months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years0
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Sep 202500
Mar 202500
Sep 202400
Mar 202400
Sep 202300
Mar 202300
Sep 202200
Mar 202200
Sep 202100
Mar 202100
Sep 202000

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.

A historical record

Judge Munson no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.