Christina Clair Reiss
How Judge Reiss rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Reiss
Christina Clair Reiss is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Reiss received a commission on December 21, 2009.
Judge Reiss's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Reiss'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 Reiss decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Cole's employment suit, Reiss dismissed the contract and wrongful-termination claims but allowed the Vermont workplace-safety retaliation claim to proceed.
“the court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and ... DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for retaliation in violation of VOSHA.”
In Luxenberg v. Vermont Department of Disabilities, Reiss denied a second preliminary-injunction motion because the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success or irreparable harm; she found the balance of hardships evenly weighted.
“Because Plaintiffs do not satisfy the exacting standards for an ‘extraordinary remedy’ of preliminary relief ... the court DENIES their second motion for a preliminary injunction.”
On a close particularity question involving a cell-phone warrant, the judge treated officers' decision to stop the search and obtain a second warrant when they encountered a new category of evidence as strong support for objective good faith and against suppression.
“This is exactly what good faith requires.”
Procedural preferences
In the cited self-represented insurance case, the judge allowed an amended complaint after dismissing the initial pleading for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
“Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint on or before March 29, 2024. Failure to file an Amended Complaint by this deadline shall result in dismissal of the case.”
Cautions
In Bright v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Reiss granted a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal because the complaint pleaded neither a federal question nor an amount in controversy supporting diversity jurisdiction. She gave the self-represented plaintiff a deadline to file an amended complaint.
“GRANTED because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend its Complaint within twenty (20) days.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint on or before March 29, 2024.”
“Because Plaintiffs do not satisfy the exacting standards for an ‘extraordinary remedy’ of preliminary relief ... the court DENIES their second motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 84.)”
“The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 3) as follows: (1) the court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (2) the court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for retaliation in violation of VOSHA.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss (Docs. 36, 37) filed by D40 and the Town are GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Medline's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 40.)”
“For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Legarde's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction (Doc. 10) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs have failed to establish VF's minimum contacts with Vermont for the purposes of specific personal jurisdiction, and their claims against VF must be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on that basis.”
“VF Outdoor, LLC's motion to dismiss the Vincis' individual claims against it is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (Doc. 11): Counts I and III are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; VF Outdoor, LLC's motion is DENIED with respect to the Vincis' individual claims against it in Counts II and IV.”
“The court therefore GRANTS summary judgment for Defendants Gagne, Recore, Swanton, and Stell.”
“The court thus DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss Count Seven on the basis that it is duplicitous.”
“The court therefore DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Five, Six, and Seven because §§ 2251(a), 2252(a)(2), and 2256 are not void for vagueness.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner (Doc. 9) is GRANTED, the Commissioner's motion to affirm (Doc. 10) is DENIED, and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the State Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 23) and DENIES GMCB's motion to dismiss (Doc. 50).”
“For the reasons stated above, GMCB's motion to dismiss on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity must be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 9 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 3 |
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 District of Vermont, not for Judge Reiss: 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 | 1,324 | 2.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,000 | 2.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 315 | 4.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 6 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,324 | 2.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,321 | 2.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 297 | 3.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 261 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 275 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 214 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 210 | 10.8 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 Reiss with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Reiss, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Reiss's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace