Federal judicial service
On July 28,2011,President Barack Obama nominated Contreras to fill a vacancy on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia [4] to replace Judge Ricardo M. Urbina,who assumed senior status in 2011. On October 4,2011,the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on his nomination and on November 3,2011,reported his nomination to the floor of the Senate. On March 22,2012,the Senate confirmed Contreras in a voice vote. He received his commission on March 23,2012. [5]
In April 2016 Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Contreras to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a term starting May 19,2016. [6] [2] On May 19,2021,Contreras was named the Presiding Judge. [7]
Notable cases
On November 17,2016,Contreras dismissed a lawsuit against U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland,finding that the plaintiff,who had simply said he was a voter,had no standing to sue. [8]
In 2017,Contreras was assigned the case of United States of America v. Michael T. Flynn ,the former National Security Adviser to President Donald Trump. The two-page indictment was released on December 1,2017. [9] Contreras accepted Flynn's guilty plea to one count of making false statements to the FBI in the course of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The guilty plea was part of a plea bargain with the Special Counsel investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III. [9] On December 7,2017,Contreras was recused from further sentencing hearings scheduled to take place in the future. [10] The case was reassigned to District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. [11] According to several reputable sources,text messages show that Peter Strzok,a veteran FBI counterintelligence official who worked on the Flynn case as part of Mueller's team,knew Contreras. [12] [13]
On August 6,2020,Contreras dismissed a lawsuit House Republicans filed against U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that challenged proxy voting rules adopted during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. He ruled that the Constitution's "Speech or Debate Clause" prohibited lawsuits over Congress's legislative efforts,concluding,"the Court can conceive of few other actions,besides actually debating,speaking,or voting,that could more accurately be described as 'legislative' than the regulation of how votes may be cast". [14] [15]
On March 5,2021,Contreras ruled that the states of Illinois,Nevada,and Virginia had ratified the Equal Rights Amendment too late for the amendment to be valid,as they did so after the congressionally imposed 1982 deadline. [16]
On March 4,2025,Contreras ruled that President Donald Trump had unlawfully terminated Merit Systems Protection Board Chair Cathy Harris. Harris had been dismissed via a two-sentence email on February 10,2025,with no reason given. Contreras found that under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,MSPB members can be removed only for "inefficiency,neglect of duty,or malfeasance in office",and ordered Harris reinstated. Citing the 1935 Supreme Court precedent Humphrey's Executor v. United States ,he wrote that "direct political control over the MSPB would neuter the Civil Service Reform Act's statutory scheme." [17] The Justice Department immediately appealed,and on March 28,2025,the D.C. Circuit granted an emergency stay,effectively allowing Trump to remove Harris while the case continued. [18]
On May 29,2025,Contreras ruled that Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful. In Learning Resources,Inc. v. Trump,two Illinois-based toy manufacturers challenged Trump's tariffs on imports from China,Canada,Mexico,and other countries. Contreras found that IEEPA "does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs set forth" in Trump's executive orders,writing,"the power to regulate is not the power to tax". Unlike the Court of International Trade,which issued a nationwide injunction the previous day,Contreras's order applied only to the two plaintiffs. [19] The case was consolidated with others and is now before the Supreme Court,with oral arguments held on November 5,2025. [20]
