Trump Judges Reverse Lower Court and Throw Out Claim of Use of Excessive Force by Federal Officials
“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump Fourth Circuit judge Julius Richardson wrote a 2-1 opinion, joined by Trump judge Allison Rushing, that threw out an excessive use of force claim against federal officials, reversing a lower court judgment that allowed the claims to proceed, The July 2025 ruling was in Orellana v Deputy US Marshal.
What happened in this case?
At 2 AM one night, US marshals served a warrant for the arrest of Eric Trinidad in connection with an assault involving his girlfriend Evy Orellana, who he lived with in a basement apartment in his mother’s home. A police dog first entered the apartment, encountered Orelllana and bit her, “pulling her to the ground and tearing a chunk of flesh out of her leg.” She suffered “serious injuries” and Trinidad was arrested.
Orellana filed suit in federal court against the officers for use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment under the Bivens doctrine, which permits direct lawsuits under the Constitution for violations of the Constitution by federal officials in limited circumstances. The officers moved to dismiss, claiming that the case represented an attempt to extend the Bivens doctrine. The district court denied the motions to dismiss and the case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
How did Trump judges Richardson and Rushing rule and why is it harmful?
Trump judge Richardson wrote a 2-1 decision, joined by Trump judge Rushing, that reversed the lower court and threw out Orellana’s case. Although they agreed that what happened to her was “tragic,” they claimed that the case was an effort to extend Bivens to a “new context,” which the Supreme Court has warned against, since this case involved a warrant and US marshals.
Judge Roger Gregory, who was nominated by President Clinton and by President George W Bush, strongly dissented. Based on a careful analysis of the case and past precedent, he explained that there was “no meaningful difference between the context of Bivens and that of this case,” so that Orellana should have a chance to prove her claims.
The ruling by Trump judges Richardson and Rushing obviously harms Evy Orellana in her effort to get justice for the serious injuries she has suffered. The decision threatens to similarly limit the use of the Bivens doctrine in cases involving excessive force and other misconduct by federal officials, particularly in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and North and South Carolina. It also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.