Henry Edward Hudson
How Judge Hudson rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Hudson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He treats patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 as a question of law fit for the pleadings stage, and will resolve abstract-idea (Alice) challenges on a motion to dismiss when he has a full understanding of the claimed subject matter: here holding a geo-fencing 'right place at the right time' patent unpatentable.
“Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. s 101 is an issue of law; as such, it is suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss.”
He reads a statute by its plain text and declines to extend a benefit Congress wrote for one named entity to another. He refused to stretch the HERA 'Penalty Bar', which by its terms shields 'the Agency' (the FHFA conservator), to cover Fannie Mae itself.
“the Court sees no need to ‘travel [], in [its] search for the meaning of the lawmakers, beyond the borders of the statute,’”
On the merits of insurance and contract disputes he holds parties to their own documents and sworn testimony. He granted the insurer summary judgment because the insured had deliberately structured the worker as an independent contractor (to limit liability), defeating coverage under an employee-theft policy.
“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
He sharply distinguishes facial from as-applied constitutional challenges: where binding precedent forecloses a facial attack he dismisses it, but he will let an as-applied undue-burden claim proceed to a developed factual record rather than resolve a fact-intensive balancing test on the pleadings.
“Count IV survives Rule 12(b)(6) as-applied review and may proceed on that particular footing.”
He treats federal abstention as a narrow exception and will not defer a federal constitutional case to parallel state proceedings absent an exceptional countervailing interest.
“Abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule.”
He runs an efficient docket, dispensing with oral argument under E.D. Va. Local Civil Rule 7(J) when the briefing already presents the issues adequately.
“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.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- From the published-opinion sample plus published profiles (NOT a counted distribution): Hudson's E.D.
- Va. civil docket spans patent / 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract-idea disputes (Calamp/ORBCOMM), insurance and contract (GRM, Humana), consumer/FCRA class actions (Burke), constitutional and civil-rights litigation (Falls Church abortion-regulation challenge; Cockrum DNC-hack damages suit), and Medicare-payment recovery (Humana).
- He is best known, however, for the 2007 Michael Vick dog-fighting criminal case and for Virginia v. Sebelius (Dec. 2010), the first federal ruling striking the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.
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