Investigation Reveals Patterns of Bias in Federal Civil Rights Cases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 15, 2026
John Adams Inquirer Investigation Reveals Patterns of Bias in Federal Civil Rights Cases
Analysis of 500,000 cases shows significant disparities in outcomes based on judicial assignment
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A comprehensive investigation by the John Adams Inquirer has uncovered troubling patterns of bias in federal civil rights litigation, with some judges dismissing or ruling against plaintiffs at rates significantly higher than the national average.
The investigation analyzed over 500,000 federal civil rights cases filed between 2015 and 2025, examining outcomes across different judges, districts, and case types. The findings reveal that defendants facing similar charges can experience dramatically different outcomes depending on which judge is assigned to their case.
Key Findings:
- Civil rights plaintiffs prevail in only 4% of cases before certain judges, compared to a national average of 31%
- Sentencing disparities of up to 65% exist between judges handling similar criminal cases
- Pro se litigants face dismissal rates exceeding 90% in some courts
- Appeals courts have overturned decisions from specific judges at rates three times the national average
The John Adams Inquirer is calling for:
- Enhanced judicial ethics training
- Greater transparency in case assignment procedures
- Regular auditing of judicial decision patterns
- Improved resources for pro se litigants
The full investigation is available on the John Adams Inquirer website, along with detailed data visualizations and methodology documentation.
About John Adams Inquirer
The John Adams Inquirer is an independent investigative journalism organization dedicated to monitoring judicial bias and promoting fair access to justice.
Media Contact: [email protected]
###
Media Contact
For media inquiries regarding this press release, please contact us through our contact page.
Contact Us