D.C. Federal Judge Issues Order in Long-Running NACDL Records Case Against Bureau of Prisons

D.C. Federal Judge Issues Order in Long-Running NACDL Records Case Against Bureau of Prisons

Judge Jia M. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion and order on November 20, 2025, in the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' case against the Federal Bureau of Prisons — a dispute that has been pending since 2018 and centers on records the defense bar organization has sought from the agency.

The case, Civil Action No. 2018-2399, was filed more than seven years ago in the District of Columbia. The November 20 filing is styled as a memorandum opinion and order addressing a request by NACDL, though the excerpt available in the CourtListener record cuts off before detailing the specific relief sought or the court's reasoning. The docket lists the Federal Bureau of Prisons and unnamed additional defendants. CourtListener's metadata shows no citing opinions yet, consistent with a fresh filing.

For practitioners, the case is a reminder that litigation over federal agency records can grind on for years, and that the Bureau of Prisons — a frequent target of information requests from criminal defense lawyers — remains a recurring adversary in such disputes. Defense attorneys who rely on BOP records for investigations, sentencing advocacy, or conditions-of-confinement claims will want to track how Judge Cobb resolves NACDL's request, since the outcome could shape how the agency responds to similar demands going forward. The case caption identifies NACDL as plaintiff and the Bureau of Prisons as the lead defendant, underscoring the organizational stakes: this is trade-association litigation, not a single inmate's grievance.

Attorneys should pull the full opinion from the CourtListener record to see exactly what NACDL requested and what Judge Cobb ordered, since the available excerpt stops at the opening line of the court's discussion. Given the case's age and the absence of citing authority, this order may resolve a discrete procedural or records question rather than the entire dispute — watch for further filings and any appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

Primary sources: CourtListener opinion record