John D. Bates

On October 3, 2011, then-Presiding Judge John D. Bates issued a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court memorandum opinion reviewing government certifications under FISA Section 702, 50 U.S.C. § 1881a. The declassified opinion, posted by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence / intelligence.gov, states that the government’s requests are granted in part and denied in part. Quote, verified from the hosted archive copy: one aspect of the proposed collection — the “upstream collection” of Internet transactions containing multiple communications — is, in some respects, “deficient on statutory and constitutional grounds.” A November 2011 Bates follow-on opinion (also declassified on intelligence.gov) approved amended minimization procedures. Finding a Fourth Amendment / statutory problem in 2011 is not a finding about the 2016–2017 Carter Page applications. Those came later, after he left FISC.

In National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-01907-JDB (D.D.C.), consolidated for opinion with Trustees of Princeton University v. United States, No. 1:17-cv-02325-JDB, plaintiffs challenged DHS’s September 2017 rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). On April 24, 2018, Judge John D. Bates issued a 60-page memorandum opinion (ECF 23). Quote, verified from the hosted GovInfo/USCOURTS PDF: under the APA, “DACA’s rescission was arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful. Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program.” The opinion states plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion is granted in part and “the decision to rescind DACA will be vacated and remanded to DHS,” with vacatur stayed ninety days. An APA vacatur is not a criminal conviction and not a Supreme Court holding. Later Supreme Court litigation in the Regents line is a separate primary about other courts’ work.

In American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor, No. 1:25-cv-00339-JDB (D.D.C.), unions and the Economic Policy Institute moved to temporarily restrain the Department of Labor, the United States Digital Service (then styled the United States DOGE Service), and the United States DOGE Service Temporary Organization from giving persons outside Labor — “most pointedly, the other defendants’ employees” — access to non-public Department of Labor information or data. On February 7, 2025, Bates issued a memorandum opinion and order (ECF 18). Quote, verified from the hosted PDF: “on the current record, plaintiffs have failed to establish standing. So although the Court harbors concerns about defendants’ alleged conduct, it must deny plaintiffs’ motion at this time.” A TRO denial is not a finding that DOGE broke a statute and not a permanent blank check. Outlet reports of a later mid-February expanded-caption denial (including a “Goldilocks entity” quotation) are labeled reporting until that second Bates-signed PDF is hosted here.

In Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 1:25-cv-00322-JDB (D.D.C.), Bates issued a temporary restraining order (ECF 11) on February 11, 2025. Quote, verified from the hosted RECAP PDF: Defendants Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, and Food and Drug Administration “shall, by not later than 11:59 pm on February 11, 2025, restore to their versions as of January 30, 2025, each webpage and dataset identified by Plaintiff on pages 6–12 of its Memorandum of Law” (ECF 6-1). The removals followed Executive Order 14168 and related OPM guidance on gender ideology. The order’s words are restore the identified pages. They are not a line about Hope for Children, USAID, or Carol Rhees. A TRO is not a finding that he ruled to protect anyone’s funding. H.Res. 157 Article I later recites this restore order as the House paper’s predicate.

Two captions, one opinion spine. American Historical Association v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-01169-JDB, and Freedom of the Press Foundation v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-01402-JDB. Plaintiffs challenged an April 2026 Office of Legal Counsel opinion treating the Presidential Records Act of 1978 as unconstitutional and related White House records guidance. Bates held a consolidated hearing on May 13, 2026. On May 20, 2026, he issued a memorandum opinion (ECF 15) and a two-page order (ECF 14) in the Press-CREW case granting the preliminary injunction. Quote, verified from ECF 14: plaintiffs’ motion “is GRANTED”; defendants the Executive Office of the President, the White House Office, the Office of the Vice President, and Chief of Staff to the President Susie Wiles are preliminarily ENJOINED, effective 9:00 a.m. on May 26, 2026, to comply in full with the Presidential Records Act, preserve presidential and vice-presidential records, limit non-official messaging accounts as specified, and establish or reestablish retention policies; notice of compliance by May 28, 2026. Quote, verified from ECF 15: “On the merits, the Records Act is likely constitutional. It was validly enacted by Congress under the Property Clause….” The same opinion calls an OLC reading “a stark misreading of the case,” declines for then to enjoin the President and Vice President in official duties, and finds it “premature” to enjoin President Trump in his personal capacity about end-of-term conduct. A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment, not a criminal conviction, and not a Supreme Court holding.

GovInfo and Congress.gov host the introduced text of H. Res. 157, 119th Congress: “Impeaching John Deacon Bates, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for high crimes and misdemeanors.” Introduced February 24, 2025, by Mr. Ogles. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary the same day. Congress.gov / GovInfo status: Introduced. Article I of the introduced text recites that Bates ordered CDC, HHS, and FDA to restore “LGBTQI+ content” on government webpages “in contravention of Executive Order 14168” — i.e., the Doctors for America restore order, not the later PRA injunction and not the DOGE TRO denial. The resolution’s wherefore clause is the resolution speaking. It is not a finding by this site and not a finding by a court. This file will not write “IMPEACHED.”