Anthony John Trenga
How Judge Trenga rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Trenga
Anthony John Trenga is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Trenga received a commission on October 14, 2008. Judge Trenga assumed senior status on June 1, 2021.
Judge Trenga's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Trenga'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).
How Judge Trenga decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Elhady v. Kable, he granted summary judgment for U.S. citizens challenging the redress process for their presumed inclusion in the Terrorist Screening Database. He found that their inclusion implicated protected liberty interests and that the DHS TRIP process did not adequately protect those interests.
“the DHS TRIP process through which Plaintiffs may challenge their inclusion in the TSDB is not constitutionally adequate to protect those liberty interests.”
In a challenge to federal campaign contribution limits, he assumed standing and non-mootness without deciding either issue and held the challenged limits constitutional.
“the Court will assume, without deciding, that plaintiffs have standing to raise their claims and that their claims are not moot, but concludes that the FECA's challenged limitations on campaign contributions are constitutional.”
In a False Claims Act case arising from a military moving program, he set aside a jury liability verdict because the government had not shown deception, misrepresentation, or a false claim under its anticompetitive-conduct theory.
“the Court concludes that the government's theory of liability, is both unprecedented and untenable. There was no evidence that Gosselin engaged in any deceptions or misrepresentations and the evidence was therefore insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the jury's finding of liability”
Procedural preferences
In a post-trial retaliation case, he denied the defendant’s Rule 50(b) motion as to liability but vacated the jury’s emotional-distress awards because the trial evidence did not support them.
“It is granted insofar as the Court finds the evidence at trial insufficient to support the jury's compensatory damage awards for emotional distress and is otherwise denied.”
In Mohamed v. Holder, he partly denied a motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged certain constitutional claims arising from his presumed placement on the No Fly List.
“as applied to American citizens, the No Fly List raises substantial constitutional issues, and that the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to make plausible certain of his constitutional claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“concludes that the FECA's challenged limitations on campaign contributions are constitutional. Summary judgment will therefore be granted in favor of defendant FEC.”
“Summary judgment will therefore be granted in favor of defendant FEC.”
“the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted insofar as the Court finds the evidence at trial insufficient to support the jury's compensatory damage awards for emotional distress and is otherwise denied.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion for Dismissal of Count IV is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Dismissal of Count IV is DENIED as moot.”
“as applied to American citizens, the No Fly List raises substantial constitutional issues, and that the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to make plausible certain of his constitutional claims. The Motion will therefore be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“the Court grants Defendants' motion, and denies Plaintiffs motion, as to Counts J, II, and IV.”
“the Court concludes as a matter of law, based on undisputed facts, that HMS paid the $60 fee for compensable services actually performed and that the fee was therefore not a prohibited referral fee.”
“The Court will therefore DENY Plaintiffs' motion [Doc. No. 57] and GRANT the defendant's motion [Doc. No. 60].”
“the Court finds that there are no triable issues of material fact and that Health Net is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
“the Court also finds that the Motion to Strike is meritorious and will be granted.”
“the Court GRANTS the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law and also CONDITIONALLY GRANTS defendants' motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 50(c)(1).”
“the Court will grant MWAA’s motion and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion [Doc. No. 13] be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;”
“and Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 16] be. and the same hereby is. DENIED;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- From the enumerated 2019 cohort (illustrative, not a counted population): a general civil mix: APA/agency-review, prisoner civil rights, False Claims Act (Chen v. Rigsbee), immigration (Tomas-Ramos v. Hott), insurance (Banner Life), FTCA (Johnson, Kalivretenos), employment, and consumer/mortgage.
- His best-known matters (Elhady watchlist, Mohamed No Fly List, travel ban, Bijan Kian/Flynn, Chelsea Manning contempt) span his full tenure and are not all in this single-year cohort.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 16 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 11 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 7 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Trenga: 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 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,204 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,299 | 4.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 493 | 8.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 15 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,613 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,194 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,134 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,152 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,860 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,267 | 5.9 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 Trenga with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Trenga, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Trenga's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace