News · Report
Why did every judge in the district recuse from Harpole v. Owens?
On July 8, 2026, all district and magistrate judges of the Middle District of Tennessee stepped aside. The order gives no reason, and as of October no replacement judge appears on the docket.
By Americans for Transparency · Published
The short answer
On July 8, 2026, every district and magistrate judge of the Middle District of Tennessee recused from Harpole v. Owens. The Order of Recusal says a judge from outside the district will be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. It gives no reason. As of the docket's October 12, 2026 update, no order naming a replacement judge appears, which is why the case has stalled before any ruling on the facts.
- All district and magistrate judges in the Middle District of Tennessee recused on July 8, 2026.
- The order does not state a reason for the recusals.
- The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is to designate a judge from outside the district.
- As of October 12, 2026, no replacement judge appears on the public docket.
What the order says
On July 8, 2026, Chief Judge William L. Campbell Jr. entered an Order of Recusal stating that every district and magistrate judge of the Middle District of Tennessee had recused in the matter, and that a judge from outside the district would be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.[1]
“As all District Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Middle District of Tennessee have recused in this matter, a District Judge from outside the District will be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
What the order does not say
It gives no reason for the recusals. A full-district recusal is unusual but not unknown; it can follow a connection between the parties or counsel and the court. The order itself states only the fact of the recusals and the referral to the Sixth Circuit. AFNPT does not know the reason, and the public record does not supply one.[1]
What it means for the case
Until the Sixth Circuit designates a judge, the pending motions cannot be decided. As of the docket's October 12, 2026 update, no order naming a replacement judge appears. That is the main reason the case has not reached any ruling on the merits.[2][1]
None of this bears on whether the underlying Fort Huachuca account is true or false. A recusal is a procedural step about which judge hears the case, not a finding about the facts. AFNPT's running account is here.[3]
Questions people ask
Does a mass recusal mean something is wrong with the case?
Not necessarily. It means the local judges have a reason to step aside, often a connection to a party or lawyer. The order here states no reason, so any explanation would be speculation.
Who will hear the case now?
A judge from outside the district, to be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As of October 12, 2026 no such judge had been named on the public docket.
Sources
- [1]U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., Order of Recusal, Doc. 27, July 8, 2026. Primary record
- [2]CourtListener / RECAP, Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet, October 12, 2026. Primary record
- [3]Americans for Transparency, Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record, October 7, 2026. AFNPT review