Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk
How Judge Kacsmaryk rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kacsmaryk
Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Kacsmaryk received a commission on June 21, 2019.
Judge Kacsmaryk's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kacsmaryk, 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
Email a Word proposed order with every motion.
“All motions require a proposed order that must be emailed to [email protected] and must be in a Word format (not PDF).”
Sealing
Seek leave and explain why disclosure risks outweigh public access and why alternatives will not work before filing under seal.
“A party or parties seeking to file a specific document under seal must: (1) move for leave to do so; (2) brief the legal authorities indicating the risks of disclosure outweigh the public’s right to know; and (3) explain that no other viable alternative to sealing exists.”
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).
- Special Order 19-2: Service, Access, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Miscellaneous Order 61-1: Restrictions on Electronic Filing of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Miscellaneous Order 61: Electronic Case Filing ↗
- Special Order 19-1: Second Amended Order Regarding Public Access to Certain Documents ↗
How Judge Kacsmaryk decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bruckner Truck Sales v. Guzman, Kacsmaryk upheld the SBA’s PPP loan-review rule and granted the government summary judgment. He read the governing statutes to exclude loans to ineligible borrowers from the guarantee and treated the rule as a clarification of existing law.
“if a PPP loan is granted to an ineligible borrower, that loan is not 'guaranteed under' 15 U.S.C. 636(a) because an ineligible borrower's loan is not 'in accordance with' or 'according to' the governing statutes ... The Loan Review IFR made no new law simply by reminding borrowers of that consequence.”
In Crawford v. West Texas A&M University, Kacsmaryk granted summary judgment on a Title VII retaliation claim after finding that a paid suspension and internal investigation were not materially adverse and that the final decisionmakers lacked knowledge of the plaintiff’s protected activity.
“If the final decisionmaker lacked knowledge of the employee’s participation in protected activity, the retaliation claim cannot survive summary judgment.”
In Ovalle v. United Rentals, Kacsmaryk granted summary judgment on a premises liability claim because the plaintiff knew about the work bay hazard and, as its sole worker, had knowledge coextensive with the employer’s; he found no duty to warn or make it safe under Austin v. Kroger.
“under Austin’s general rule, Defendant had no duty to warn or make safe the dangerous conditions because Plaintiff knew of the condition.”
Procedural preferences
In Ovalle v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., Judge Kacsmaryk found the plaintiff’s later testimony too inconsistent with his earlier account for a reasonable juror to accept it and granted summary judgment.
“The Court finds Plaintiff's testimony is so inconsistent that no reasonable juror could accept it.”
In Burnett & Sons, Inc. v. Hall Cattle Feeders, LLC, Judge Kacsmaryk allowed a lender to intervene under Rule 24, denied pending summary-judgment motions as moot with leave to refile, and ordered mediation.
“Although the movant bears the burden of establishing its right to intervene, Rule 24 is to be liberally construed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Having considered the motions, pleadings, and relevant law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and renders summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor on all claims.”
“The Court DENIES Defendants' Cross-Motion.”
“CFC's Motion is GRANTED.”
“The parties' pending cross-motions for partial summary judgment are DENIED as moot with leave to refile.”
“Because WTAMU has demonstrated that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all of Crawford's claims, WTAMU's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion and GRANTS Defendants' Cross-Motion.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 95) and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's case in its entirety.”
“Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice. ... Plaintiff has leave to amend his Complaint within fourteen days of the date of this Order to attempt to properly allege subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“the Court GRANTS Great Lakes's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Great Lakes's claims and HFT's counterclaims, DECLARES the appraisal award void, STRIKES the appointed umpire, and DISMISSES with prejudice HFT's counterclaims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion IN PART. FDA’s approval of mifepristone is hereby STAYED. The Court STAYS the applicability of this opinion and order for seven (7) days to allow the federal government time to seek emergency relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.”
“Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ injuries are fully redressed by the Court’s vacatur of the gender identity provisions of the 2024 Guidance. As such, a permanent injunction in this case is unwarranted.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. Defendants are preliminarily ENJOINED from enforcing the 2024 Rule against Plaintiffs during the remainder of this suit.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED and the Cross-Motion is GRANTED.”
“DOL has provided that here. Accordingly, the Department is entitled to summary judgment, and Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload description is based on sampled Amarillo Division cases rather than a complete authoritative census.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 Texas, not for Judge Kacsmaryk: 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 | 4,103 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 829 | 4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 3,228 | 6.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 11 | 16.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 35 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 4,103 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,648 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,808 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,698 | 56 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,094 | 19.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,294 | 13.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,367 | 6.9 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 Kacsmaryk with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kacsmaryk, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kacsmaryk's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace