David C. Norton
How Judge Norton rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Norton
David C. Norton is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Norton received a commission on July 12, 1990.
Judge Norton's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Norton, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
At hearings, Judge Norton considers only arguments already in the briefs and rejects new arguments in reply briefs.
“The court will not consider arguments raised at hearings that were not included in the parties' briefs nor will the court consider any new arguments raised in a reply brief.”
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).
How Judge Norton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Desmarais v. Scientific Research Corp., he granted summary judgment on a wrongful-discharge claim after finding no clear mandate of South Carolina public policy to support an exception to at-will employment.
“For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
In one insurance removal dispute, Norton held that the defendant could have learned the relevant facts through a quick public-record search before the time it claimed removability became clear, and he remanded the case.
“Nationwide ‘could have intelligently ascertained’ these facts by conducting a quick search of the internet and the DOI database at any point after Nationwide received Ms. Moore’s amended complaint.”
Procedural preferences
In McGlothlin v. Hennelly, Norton dismissed defamation claims based on protected rhetorical hyperbole while allowing claims about more specific allegations to proceed.
“Based on the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss.”
Cautions
In Baten v. McMaster, Norton dismissed a challenge to South Carolina’s allocation of presidential electors after finding the voting-rights theory foreclosed by controlling precedent.
“For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss and dismisses this action in full.”
In one venue dispute, Norton refused a transfer request raised on reconsideration because the plaintiffs had previously argued that transfer would prejudice them.
“Because plaintiffs took the position that transfer would be prejudicial when opposing defendant’s motion to dismiss—and only seek to change this position on a motion for reconsideration—the court finds that transfer is not in the interest of justice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS defendants' partial motion for summary judgment and DENIES plaintiffs' motion to certify. Counts five and six of plaintiffs' amended complaint are therefore dismissed.”
“the court GRANTS defendants' partial motion for summary judgment and DENIES plaintiffs' motion to certify.”
“For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
After a weeklong bench trial in a First Amendment case, Norton struck down the City of Charleston's tour-guide licensing law, which required a written exam on a roughly 500-page manual and continuing education for paid tours in the historic district. He held that it failed intermediate scrutiny because the City had not seriously pursued less-restrictive alternatives and therefore was not narrowly tailored. This post-trial declaratory judgment shows that Norton will invalidate a speech-burdening licensing ordinance where the government has not tried less-restrictive means.
“Based on the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss and dismisses this action in full.”
“the court GRANTS Meta’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“the court GRANTS the Government’s motion for leave to identify a new expert, ECF No. 287.”
“The court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to submit an economic damages disclosure but only to disclose damages for medical bills incurred in 2025 and 2026 and lost wages from 2025, ECF No. 297, and DENIES IN PART the same motion”
“The court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 309,”
“The court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 309, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 316, Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, ECF No. 325, and Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery and compel production of documents, ECF No. 330.”
“For the foregoing reasons the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Ms. Moore’s motion to remand and REMANDS this case to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas.”
“For the foregoing reasons the court GRANTS LM General’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the United States’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”
“the court GRANTS Pella’s motion for partial summary judgment”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 92 days (N = 9).
Norton's caseload includes federal civil-enforcement and False Claims Act matters, a substantial criminal docket, and a group of often faster-moving self-represented, habeas, immigration-mandamus, and procedural civil cases. The sampled matters also include interpleader and trademark litigation.
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 | 19 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 12 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 19 | 12 |
| Sep 2025 | 5 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 19 | 15 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 15 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 14 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 12 |
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 South Carolina, not for Judge Norton: 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 | 2,805 | 7.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 724 | 5.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,005 | 8.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 64 | 17.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 36 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,805 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 5,800 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,296 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,364 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,599 | 10 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,190 | 10.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,402 | 9.8 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 Norton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Norton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Norton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace