Trevor N. McFadden

On June 7, 2017, President Trump nominated McFadden to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to the seat vacated by Judge Richard J. Leon, who took senior status on December 31, 2016.[4] A hearing on his nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on June 28, 2017.[5] On July 20, 2017, his nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[6] On October 30, 2017, the United States Senate voted 84–10 in favor of his confirmation.[7] He received his judicial commission on October 31, 2017.

In April 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives requested that McFadden issue a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's plan to divert about $6 billion from military construction and counter-drug appropriations to build a wall along the U.S-Mexico border, arguing that the Trump administration's action violated the Constitution's Appropriations Clause.[8][9] In June 2019, McFadden ruled that the House lacked standing to challenge the administration's diversion of funding and therefore dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. This ruling contradicted the 2015 ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in U.S. House of Representatives v. Azar, in which the court found that then-Republican-controlled House of Representatives had standing in a lawsuit against President Obama's Affordable Care Act.[10] In September 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned McFadden's decision and reinstated the House's lawsuit. Citing the McGahn case, the appellate court held that a single house of Congress has "standing to pursue litigation against the Executive for injury to its legislative rights"; the court also criticized the Trump administration's argument that "the Executive Branch can freely spend Treasury funds as it wishes unless and until a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress forbids it" as a position that "turns the constitutional order upside down."[9][11]

Congressman Richard Neal, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has litigated to obtain Trump's tax returns, but McFadden has ruled other matters should be litigated prior to any such release. Trump's attorneys moved to dismiss the case, arguing congressional investigatory power is nonexistent. Should McFadden rule for the committee's request, Trump's attorneys claim further that Neal's proffered legislative purpose—oversight of mandatory presidential tax audits—is merely a pretext for securing and publicizing Trump's IRS 1040s forms.[12]

McFadden was assigned to rule on a subpoena hearing in a case regarding a Russian businessman named in the Steele dossier who sued Buzzfeed News for libel for publishing the dossier. Fusion GPS, the research firm which had commissioned the dossier and to whom the subpoenas have been issued, requested that McFadden step down from the case for potential conflict of interest. Fusion GPS alleges that McFadden's connections to Trump—a $1,000 donation to Trump's 2016 campaign, some volunteer work performed by McFadden on Trump's transition team vetting potential Cabinet nominees, and the fact that Trump nominated McFadden to the bench—are grounds for dismissal. McFadden denied the recusal request. McFadden noted that he has little to no actual connection to the President, who is not a party to the lawsuit but has political interest in the suit, and has never even met the President. McFadden ruled "The President's connection with me and his interest in this case are simply too tenuous to cause a reasonable observer to question my impartiality." Hofstra University law professor James Sample, an authority on the subject of recusal, said that while he found some of the McFadden's contentions "curious," recusal did not appear to be required.[13][14][15]