Henry Edward Hudson
How Judge Hudson rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hudson
Henry E. Hudson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Hudson received a commission on August 2, 2002. Judge Hudson assumed senior status on June 1, 2018.
Judge Hudson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hudson'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 Hudson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Calamp Wireless Networks Corp. v. ORBCOMM, Inc., he resolved a Section 101 patent-eligibility challenge at the pleading stage. He found the challenged tracking claims directed to an abstract idea and granted the defendant's partial motion to dismiss.
“Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is an issue of law; as such, it is suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss.”
In Burke's credit-reporting suit, Hudson denied Fannie Mae's request for judgment on the pleadings because the HERA Penalty Bar names the federal conservator, not Fannie Mae, as its beneficiary.
“the Court sees no need to ‘travel [], in [its] search for the meaning of the lawmakers, beyond the borders of the statute,’”
In GRM Management's insurance suit, Hudson granted summary judgment for the insurer after relying on the insured's subcontractor agreement and sworn testimony to find that the worker who stole property was an independent contractor, outside the employee-theft coverage.
“It is undisputed. that GRM suffered a loss in September 2013, resulting directly from a theft committed by Moore while providing services to GRM.”
Procedural preferences
In Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, he dismissed facial constitutional challenges foreclosed by precedent while allowing several as-applied claims to proceed beyond the pleading stage for factual development.
“Count IV survives Rule 12(b)(6) as-applied review and may proceed on that particular footing.”
In Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, he declined to abstain in favor of pending state proceedings, explaining that abstention from federal jurisdiction is an exception.
“Abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule.”
In Calamp's patent case, Hudson dispensed with oral argument because the briefing presented the facts and legal issues adequately for his ruling on a partial motion to dismiss.
“The Court will dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process.”
In a close immigration-detention case, he treated prolonged physical presence and nearly five months of detention as sufficient to trigger due-process protection and ordered a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
“Petitioner is therefore entitled to a bond hearing pending a decision on his removal.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion.”
“In light of Electric Power Group, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.”
“For the reasons stated herein, the Motion will be denied.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant ORBCOMM's Motion.”
“For the reasons- discussed herein, the Court will grant Cincinnati’s Motion, Consequently, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“Based on the foregoing analysis, the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“Based on the foregoing analysis, the Campaign's Motion to Dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) will be granted.”
“the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief”
“Petitioner’s Motion for Issuance of Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 4) is DECLARED MOOT.”
“Defendants’ Motion *748for Summary Judgment will therefore be granted and this case will be dismissed.”
“Accordingly, Defendant Homero Vasquez’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31) will be granted in part.”
“Based on the foregoing analysis, the Motion to Dismiss will be denied in part and granted in part.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The five selected dockets include insurance, civil-rights, employment, habeas, and school-board matters. They are a small selected set and do not describe the judge’s overall caseload.
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 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 4 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 7 | 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 Hudson: 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 Hudson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hudson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hudson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace