William Kenneth Sessions III
How Judge Sessions rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sessions
William K. Sessions, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Sessions received a commission on August 14, 1995. Judge Sessions assumed senior status on June 15, 2014.
Judge Sessions's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sessions, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Jury Selection Procedure - Civil (Hon. William K. Sessions III) ↗
- Jury Selection Procedure - Criminal (Hon. William K. Sessions III) ↗
Key rules
Trial
In civil jury selection, each side has three peremptory challenges.
“There will be 12 jurors. Each side will have three peremptory challenges.”
Trial
In civil jury selection, submit proposed voir dire questions before trial.
“shall submit proposed voir dire questions in advance of trial.”
Trial
In civil jury selection, a passed peremptory challenge is lost.
“If a challenge is passed, that challenge is lost; it cannot be saved to increase the number”
Trial
In criminal jury selection, the defense has ten peremptory challenges and the government six for the main jury.
“the defendant will have ten peremptory challenges. The government will have six peremptory challenges.”
Trial
In criminal jury selection, submit proposed voir dire questions before trial.
“Counsel shall submit proposed voir dire questions in advance of trial.”
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 Sessions decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dhindsa v. Hale, Sessions treated a petitioner who had passed slightly beyond the border as still at the threshold of initial entry under Thuraissigiam and denied immediate release and a bond hearing.
“Though Petitioner may have made it slightly further into the United States than 25 yards, Thuraissigiam still controls. Petitioner was at the threshold of initial entry, and he is entitled to neither immediate release nor an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.”
In Ozturk v. Trump, Sessions found no flight risk or danger to the community and ordered the habeas petitioner released on her own recognizance without GPS or other ICE monitoring.
“In light of the Court's finding of no risk of flight and no danger to the community, Petitioner is to be released from ICE custody immediately on her own recognizance, without any form of Body-Worn GPS or other ICE monitoring at this time.”
In Austin v. Monsanto Company, Sessions declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ negligent-misrepresentation claims insofar as they sought recovery for personal injuries.
“the Court declines to dismiss Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claims insofar as they are based upon personal injuries.”
Procedural preferences
In Ozturk v. Trump, Sessions held that the government should have sought clarification from the issuing court when literal compliance with its status-quo order was impossible, and ordered Ozturk returned to Vermont.
“At minimum, the government should have informed the issuing court in a timely fashion that compliance with the order was not literally possible and sought out clarification.”
In EEOC v. Coughlin, Sessions held that Ms. Lumbra’s federal punitive-damages and declaratory-relief claims ended with her death, while her VFEPA claim and federal compensatory-damages claim survived.
“However, Ms. Lumbra’s state law claim under VFEPA, as well as her claim for compensatory damages under federal law both survive her death.”
In EEOC v. Coughlin, Sessions declined to extend the parties' protective order to documents filed with the court, citing the presumption of public access and the need to review sealing requests individually.
“Given this presumption of openness and the deliberate and specific review that sealing requests require, the Court declines to extend the protective order to documents filed with the Court.”
In Stimson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Sessions struck State Farm’s supplemental summary-judgment brief as a sanction for continued noncompliance with discovery orders.
“As a sanction for State Farm’s continued noncompliance, the Court is striking State Farm’s supplemental brief in support of its motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 72.”
Cautions
In Lefebvre v. Sullivan, Sessions struck an unsigned discovery motion and explained that it also was premature because the plaintiff had not first used the discovery procedures available under Rules 26 through 36.
“the court would deny it as premature as the court does not involve itself in the pre-trial discovery phase of a case, except in the context of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel compliance with the discovery methods set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 through 36.”
In Curiale v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, Sessions found the administrator’s heavy reliance on one medical opinion to deny long-term disability coverage unreasonable and an abuse of discretion.
“basing the denial of coverage largely upon his opinion was unreasonable, arbitrary, and an abuse of discretion.”
In Peterson v. Condos, Sessions dismissed a self-represented plaintiff’s complaint during in forma pauperis screening but allowed him to file an amended complaint by a specified date.
“Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED under 28:1915(e)(2)(B) and may file an amended complaint by 5/6/2021.”
In Burlington School District v. Monsanto, Sessions denied a broad pretrial motion to exclude two experts, while leaving specific objections to statements or documents for trial when they were offered.
“Until a statement or document is offered for admission, the Court will not rule on its admissibility in the abstract.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The defendants' motion for summary judgment (Paper 39) is GRANTED. All federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, and Edwards' remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“The motions to dismiss (Paper 25 and 45) are DENIED.”
“the motion for in camera review (Paper 26) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part”
“the motion for a bill of particulars (Paper 28) is DENIED”
“the motion in limine (Paper 37) is DENIED”
“The Defendant Hofmann's motion to dismiss (Paper 34) is GRANTED with respect to any claims (1) pertaining to conduct that took place in Oklahoma (2) that are brought against him in his individual capacity. The motion to dismiss should be otherwise DENIED.”
“Bain's motion for a preliminary injunction (Paper 50) be DENIED insofar as it seeks relief against Hofmann for actions that occurred in Oklahoma.”
“The defendant County of Caledonia's motion to dismiss (paper 6) is DENIED.”
“The defendant Sheriff Bergeron's motion for summary judgment (paper 9) is DENIED.”
“plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (paper 17) on the procedural due process claims is GRANTED and DENIED on the freedom of association claims.”
“The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Hoak may still be sued in his capacity as a trustee of charitable trusts containing Diocesan property.”
“Therefore, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), a certificate of appealability is DENIED because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a federal right.”
“For the reasons that follow, the motion to reconsider is granted.”
“Upon reconsideration, VLS and Jefferson's motion for judgement on the pleadings with respect to the NIED claim is granted. The NIED claim is dismissed without prejudice.”
“The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count 1 of the Indictment (ECF No. 125) is denied.”
“DeGrace's motion to suppress is denied in full”
“Mayberry's motion to suppress is granted with respect to his statements but denied with respect to the physical evidence obtained in the search of DeGrace's car.”
“The defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) for insufficient service is DENIED.”
“It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Deadline for Service of Process (Doc. 12) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's motion to reverse is granted, the Commissioner's motion to affirm is denied, and the case is remanded for a calculation of benefits.”
“the Commissioner's motion to affirm is denied”
“Summary judgment is granted as to Count II. Summary judgment is granted on Counts I, III, and IV as they relate to Defendant Zink. Summary judgment is denied on Counts I, III, and IV as they relate to Defendants Murphy and Edmunds-Brickell.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 41.5 days (N = 8).
The sampled dockets spanned a pro se Sec. 1983/screening matter, an ERISA long-term-disability appeal, an EEOC sexual-harassment enforcement action (resolved by a $1.6 million consent decree), a pro se prisoner civil-rights suit stayed pending a related criminal case, and immigration habeas petitions including a 2026 border-detention case: consistent with a general civil and habeas docket where dispositive rulings coexist with heavy discovery and case-management motion practice.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Sessions: 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 Sessions with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sessions, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sessions's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace