Magistrate Judges: The First Judges You’ll Likely See in Federal Court

On May 4, Cole Allen appeared before Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui in the District Court for the District of Columbia, facing charges for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at the 2026 White House Correspondent’s Dinner. Up until his appearance, Allen had been held in poor conditions, including repeated strip searches and confinement in a padded room with bright lighting, under the guise of suicide watch. Prosecutors argued that Allen’s suicide watch status was necessary but Faruqui disagreed, raising concerns about Allen’s holding conditions and potential interference with his due process rights. He granted an emergency motion to remove Allen’s suicide watch status, ensuring that Allen would not be subject to such conditions again.

Prior to joining the magistrate bench, Judge Faruqui served as an assistant U.S. attorney in both the Eastern District of Missouri and District of Columbia for over a decade. The Allen case also wasn’t his first time in the public eye; he had previously made headlines for calling out the Department of Justice on mishandling a surge of cases and disregarding people’s civil rights in the process. Judge Faruqui’s position as a magistrate judge placed him at the point in the system where civil rights violations often first appear, requiring him to navigate and address these issues effectively.

What are Magistrate Judges?

Judge Faruqui is one of the roughly 600 federal magistrate judges (MJs) serving across the country and helping district court judges manage their dockets. They run pretrial proceedings, such as warrants, discovery, and settlement for civil and criminal cases. Sometimes, they may even preside over full trials if all involved parties consent. Unlike Article III judges, however, the president does not appoint them nor does the Senate confirm them to their positions. Instead, district court judges themselves select magistrate judges in a separate process in partnership with their local communities.

MJs play a crucial role in the federal legal system. They are often the first point of contact for parties and the first to hear their cases and arguments. In fact, an MJ may be the only judicial authority that parties interact with during the case, as in the 90% of federal civil cases that settle before trial. They also maintain courtroom efficiency by freeing up district court judges’ dockets for longer and more complex cases. Additionally, MJs can make influential rulings in the areas of criminal and civil procedure and civil rights that impact important case outcomes. Faruqui’s handling of Cole Allen’s case is one recent example of magistrate judges playing a significant role in the public eye.

Significant Magistrate Judge Rulings

In 2020, two groups of plaintiffs brought suits against the city of Eugene, Oregon, alleging violations of their due process and civil rights regarding their arrests for curfew violations during protests over the death of George Floyd. Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai of the District of Oregon presided over the pretrial process, hearing arguments on both sides and facilitating litigation. In 2023 and 2024, District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled on some of the claims Kasubhai had heard, some in favor of the plaintiffs and some for the defendant. In doing so, she directly adopted most of Kasubhai’s recommendations.

This case serves as an example of how magistrate judges lighten the caseload of district court judges by putting forward thoughtful and nuanced recommendations for them to implement. It also shows how they can make significant decisions that implicate civil and constitutional rights, not just procedure. Kasubhai’s background as a plaintiff-side civil litigator and labor rights lawyer, in addition to his experience serving on the Oregon State Circuit Court, helped him gain expertise with civil rights and due process issues. He was appointed as a district court judge in November 2024, and his experience making influential decisions and managing court dockets as an MJ made him an ideal candidate for an Article III appointment.

MJs also play a critical role in authorizing law enforcement actions through the process of issuing federal warrants. One such example is Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas’s involvement in the Trump administration’s investigation of 2020 election materials in Fulton County, Georgia. Salinas, a former commercial litigator and nonprofit staff attorney, approved a federal search warrant in January 2026 that authorized the FBI to seize ballots, ballot images, and voter rolls and other materials from the 2020 election from the Fulton County Election Hub. Her authority as an MJ even allowed her to request revisions before she granted approval. Her decision to issue the warrant drew intense public scrutiny and debate, but regardless of its controversiality, it clearly demonstrated the major impact on national events that such MJ actions can have.

A major component of MJs’ duties is to preside over preliminary proceedings, sometimes in cases subject to national attention. One example of this was the federal prosecution of Donald Trump for interference in the 2020 election. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, seated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, oversaw Trump’s initial arraignment on August 3, 2023. Before joining the magistrate bench, Judge Upadhyaya worked in private practice and operated an extensive pro bono practice in which she represented indigent defendants. During the arraignment, she warned Trump that it was a federal crime to intimidate, influence, bribe, or retaliate against witnesses and of the legal consequences of obstructing justice. Although this is a standard but important warning, it gained significant attention from the public due to the nature of the charges against Trump.

Without magistrate judges, U.S. federal courts would look very different. These judges make significant rulings that protect people’s procedural, civil, and constitutional rights. They ensure that cases are resolved efficiently and in the best interests of all parties involved. The first judge you meet in federal court may be the one who matters most.

Aditi Ganesan is a summer associate at Alliance for Justice.