Full Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 26-5255 September Term, 2026 1:26-cv-00757-CRC Filed On: November 12, 2026 Philip Hahn, Appellant v. United States of America, et al., Appellees ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Pillard, Wilkins, and Garcia, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed on May 7, 2026, dismissing appellant’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, be affirmed. Insofar as appellant sought an award of damages based on the actions of the Supreme Court’s Clerk, both the United States and individual members of the Supreme Court staff are immune from damages suits based on challenges to official actions taken by judicial clerks that are an integral part of the judicial process. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C. § 2674; see also Chambers v. Burwell, 824 F.3d 141, 143 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (this court can affirm on any ground supported by the record). Appellant’s assertion in his brief that the issue of the district court’s jurisdiction is a question of fact that required consideration by a jury is incorrect. See, e.g., Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, 532 F.3d 913, 919 (D.C. Cir. 2008). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 26-5255 September Term, 2026 Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk Page 2