Beryl A. Howell

Ten January 6 defendants, including Guy W. Reffitt and Bruno J. Cua, filed a Federal Tort Claims Act damages suit against the United States on October 21, 2026 (counsel: Peter Ticktin, Ticktin Law Group). The only defendant is the United States; no judge is a defendant. Paragraph 178 lists District Court judges the plaintiffs say “acted beyond the bounds of the law,” and Judge Howell is first. Source: Complaint (RECAP) · Archive copy.

The plaintiffs allege: “Judge Howell worked hand in hand with federal prosecutors in the escalation of misdemeanor cases into felony cases when J6ers demanded trials.” They allege she “aided federal prosecutors in concocting diminished rights to pre-trial release for J6ers,” and that “she inserted herself to overrule all decisions from Magistrate Judges in at least 17 different courts where Magistrate Judges followed the law to release J6ers.” These are the plaintiffs’ allegations in an unanswered complaint. No court has found any of them true.

Unsealed court records show Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team, investigating the classified-documents case (18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e), 2071, 1519, 1001, 1623), applied on February 9, 2023, for a pen register and trap-and-trace device on one AT&T cellphone. On February 10, 2023, “Hon. Beryl A. Howell, Chief United States District Judge” signed the order: 60 days of tracking dialing, routing and signaling data, plus call and text details back to November 24, 2022. The order bars AT&T from disclosing “the existence of the application and the Court’s Order, the pen-trap device, or the investigation to any person.” Its finding is that “an attorney for the government has submitted the Application for Order and has certified that the information likely to be obtained … is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Chief Judge Boasberg signed a 60-day extension on April 11, 2023. A pen register captures who is contacted and when, not content. The phone number and user are redacted. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a)(1) a judge “shall” enter the order on that certification. The released applications do not mention defense lawyers. Sources: Court-stamped records (Doc 475 / 475-1) · Archive copy · CourtListener docket.

Just the News (Oct. 9, 2026) reported that an administration official identified the user as Susie Wiles, now White House chief of staff, and that the monitoring “picked up records of Wiles’s contacts with 21 defense lawyers, journalists and campaign advisors.” Just the News discloses that its co-founder John Solomon chairs the White House task force that released the records. Source: Just the News.

On October 25, 2019, Chief Judge Howell issued a 75-page memorandum opinion in In re Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials, Grand Jury Action No. 19-48 (BAH). She granted the House Judiciary Committee’s Rule 6(e) application for certain Mueller grand-jury materials redacted from Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report. DOJ had opposed disclosure. She held a Senate impeachment trial is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e) and that the Committee had shown a particularized need.

• House Judiciary applied under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) for Mueller GJ materials.
• Oct 25, 2019 — Howell memorandum opinion grants the application (ECF 46).
• Reported at 414 F. Supp. 3d 129 (D.D.C. 2019).

The holding is a Rule 6(e) disclosure order to House Judiciary — not a finding that Donald Trump committed a crime, and not a House vote to impeach. Read the PDF.

Disclosure of certain grand-jury materials to a congressional committee. Not a conviction. Not a personal alliance with Mueller.

District-court disclosure order on the published reporter path. This file does not treat later appellate footnotes as the spine act.

The FBI seized Rep. Scott Perry’s personal cell phone on a Middle District of Pennsylvania warrant and made a forensic copy. A later D.D.C. memorandum in No. 22-sc-2144 states that “Former Chief Judge Beryl Howell issued the warrant” from D.D.C. to review that extraction, “with the proviso that Representative Perry would have an opportunity to assert any claims of privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause.” Date of the D.D.C. warrant, as stated in Howell’s December 28, 2022 opinion and docket reconstructions: August 18, 2022. On December 28, 2022, after in-camera review, she ordered Perry to disclose the vast majority of 2,219 withheld records and denied a stay.

• Aug 18, 2022 — D.D.C. warrant (Howell) to review Perry phone extraction.
• Dec 28, 2022 — Howell memorandum opinion: disclose vast majority; stay denied.
• 2023 — D.C. Circuit stayed, then remanded (In re Sealed Case, 80 F.4th 355): district court had not applied the fact-specific Gravel inquiry to many communications.

Grassley-released January 13, 2023 briefing notes separately record (government description): “Chief Judge Howell issued a favorable opinion granting us access to all but a small set of documents that Perry tried to withhold,” denied a stay, and had “warrant applications for Perry’s iCloud and email pending.” Those sentences are in a released Justice Department document. They are the government’s description of her orders — not a finding that she plotted the seizure.

Search warrant + Speech-or-Debate privilege fight over a sitting Member’s phone extract on the Arctic Frost / elector track. Not a conviction of Perry. Not a misconduct finding against Howell.

D.C. Circuit, In re Sealed Case, 80 F.4th 355 (2023): remanded for fact-specific Speech-or-Debate analysis. A successor judge then re-reviewed the set.

On January 17, 2023, the district court issued a search warrant directing Twitter, Inc., to produce information related to the account @realDonaldTrump, together with a nondisclosure order. On an ex parte affidavit, the court found probable cause to search the account for evidence of criminal offenses in the January 6 investigation and found “reasonable grounds to believe” that disclosing the warrant to the former President would seriously jeopardize the investigation. Twitter challenged the nondisclosure order, delayed production past a court-ordered deadline, then complied late. Howell denied the motion to vacate the gag and imposed a $350,000 civil contempt fine for a three-day delay. The D.C. Circuit affirmed in a redacted published opinion (In re Sealed Case, No. 23-5044). The Supreme Court later declined review.

• Jan 17, 2023 — Warrant + nondisclosure order.
• Production deadline; Twitter delayed three days past ordered deadline.
• Mar 2023 — Contempt / $350,000 sanction; motion to vacate NDO denied.
• Jul–Aug 2023 — D.C. Circuit affirms (23-5044); redacted opinion unsealed.

The circuit opinion recounts the district court’s probable-cause and §2705(b) findings and affirms the contempt sanction for late production. A search warrant plus a gag is a court order — not a finding that Donald Trump committed a crime.

Stored Communications Act warrant + nondisclosure order aimed at the former President’s Twitter account in the Jan. 6 / transfer-of-power investigation. Contempt fine was against Twitter for delay, not a criminal conviction of the account holder.

D.C. Circuit affirmed (23-5044). Supreme Court declined to take the case.

In Wilcox v. Trump, Civil Action No. 25-334 (BAH), on March 6, 2025, Howell granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The order (ECF 34) declared that the termination of Gwynne A. Wilcox as a member of the National Labor Relations Board was unlawful under 29 U.S.C. §153(a) and therefore null and void, and enjoined treating her as removed. The memorandum opinion is ECF 35. On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Wilcox, No. 24A966, stayed the March 6 order (and a related MSPB order) pending appeal.

• Mar 6, 2025 — Summary judgment + injunction restoring Wilcox (ECF 34/35).
• May 22, 2025 — Supreme Court stays the March 6 order pending appeal (24A966).

The opinion applies Humphrey’s Executor and related removal cases. A stay is not a final merits ruling. A district-court declaration is not a Supreme Court holding.

District judgment declaring an NLRB member’s removal unlawful and enjoining treatment as removed — then stayed by the Supreme Court pending appeal.

Trump v. Wilcox, No. 24A966 (May 22, 2025): stay granted. Primary PDF linked below.

In Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Action No. 25-716 (BAH), on May 2, 2025, Howell issued a memorandum opinion granting the firm’s motion for summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief and denying the government’s motion to dismiss. The caption names Executive Order 14230 (March 6, 2025), “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.” The court treated EO 14230 as an unlawful retaliation against a law firm for protected advocacy and speech.

• Mar 6, 2025 — EO 14230 issued.
• May 2, 2025 — Permanent injunction / summary judgment for Perkins Coie.
• Appeal to the D.C. Circuit later reported as pending (reporting, not a hosted docket stamp here).

Permanent injunction against an executive order targeting a named law firm. District-court holding — not a Supreme Court decision.

As of last check: district permanent injunction; appeal reported pending.

In California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 1:26-cv-02185 (BAH) (D.D.C.), California challenged EPA’s June 12, 2026 decision to reclassify four Clean Air Act §209(b) preemption-waiver orders as “rules” for Congressional Review Act review. On September 2, 2026, Howell granted California’s 5 U.S.C. §705 stay motion, denied EPA’s and intervenors’ motions to dismiss, and directed EPA “to take all necessary steps within the agency’s control to restore the status quo” before the June 12 reclassification. The opinion holds the four waivers “are properly considered adjudicatory orders” under the APA/CRA for procedural and substantive reasons.

• Jun 12, 2026 — EPA reclassification for CRA.
• Jun 22 / Jun 25, 2026 — Complaint; PI / §705 motion.
• Sep 2, 2026 — Memorandum opinion + order: §705 stay granted; dismissals denied.

Preliminary §705 stay and denial of motions to dismiss — not a final merits judgment. Pointed language targets EPA’s litigation position, not a finding about any individual’s corrupt motive.

Case continues; EPA or intervenors may appeal.