Anthony John Trenga

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia district Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 11 signed orders read

How Judge Trenga decides

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

What persuades

He will rule against the government on national-security-adjacent due-process claims where the record shows no meaningful redress: he held the Terrorist Screening Database implicates real liberty interests and that the DHS TRIP process did not give listed U.S. citizens a constitutionally adequate way to contest their inclusion.

“the DHS TRIP process through which Plaintiffs may challenge their inclusion in the TSDB is not constitutionally adequate to protect those liberty interests.”

He decides constitutional challenges on the merits while sidestepping unnecessary threshold disputes -- in the FEC case he assumed standing and non-mootness 'without deciding' and went straight to upholding the contribution limits.

“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.”

He rejects novel or expansive theories of statutory liability that lack a recognized doctrinal footing -- in an FCA case he set aside a jury verdict because the government's theory (anticompetitive conduct with no false statement, misrepresentation, or breached payment condition) had no precedent and could not, as a matter of law, establish a 'false' claim.

“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

On post-trial Rule 50(b) motions he scrutinizes the evidentiary support for each component of a verdict separately -- leaving an FCA-retaliation liability finding undisturbed while vacating the emotional-distress damages the trial evidence could not sustain.

“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.”

He distinguishes the pleading stage from the merits: he let a U.S. citizen's as-applied No Fly List claims proceed past a motion to dismiss (substantial constitutional issues, plausibly pleaded) but later, on a full summary-judgment record, upheld the List on substantive-due-process, non-delegation, and APA grounds.

“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.”

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Summary judgment
N = 12
Granted: 7Denied: 5 58% granted
Motions to dismiss
N = 3
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Moot / procedural: 1 counts only
Motion for judgment as matter of law
N = 2
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motions to strike
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

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

Elhady v. Kable
· 2019-09-04
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

Stop Reckless Economic Instability Caused By Democrats v. FEC
· 2015-02-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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 (plaintiff) Denied

“Summary judgment will therefore be granted in favor of defendant FEC.”

United States ex rel. Cody v. ManTech International Corp.
· 2017-05-19
Motion for judgment as matter of law (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Saylor v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC
· 2015-07-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion for Dismissal of Count IV is DENIED as moot.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs Motion for Dismissal of Count IV is DENIED as moot.”

Mohamed v. Holder (No Fly List MTD)
· 2014-01-22
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Mohamed v. Holder (No Fly List cross-MSJ)
· 2017-07-20
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court grants Defendants' motion, and denies Plaintiffs motion, as to Counts J, II, and IV.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court grants Defendants' motion, and denies Plaintiffs motion, as to Counts J, II, and IV.”

Kiefaber v. HMS National, Inc.
· 2012-08-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“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.”

King v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.
· 2013-07-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Court will therefore DENY Plaintiffs' motion [Doc. No. 57] and GRANT the defendant's motion [Doc. No. 60].”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court will therefore DENY Plaintiffs' motion [Doc. No. 57] and GRANT the defendant's motion [Doc. No. 60].”

Scott v. Health Net Federal Services, LLC
· 2011-08-09
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“the Court also finds that the Motion to Strike is meritorious and will be granted.”

United States ex rel. Bunk v. Birkart Globistics GmbH & Co. (Gosselin)
· 2014-12-24
Motion for judgment as matter of law (defendant) 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).”

Corr v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
· 2011-07-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court will grant MWAA's motion and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.”

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.