Settlement ‘in principle’ reached in $30 million Ashli Babbitt wrongful death lawsuit

A “settlement in principle” has been reached in the $30 million federal wrongful death lawsuit by the estate of Ashli Babbitt against the federal government, two attorneys said in a hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday afternoon.

No terms were disclosed in a hastily called hearing before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes. The hearing was scheduled to handle a motion from Terrell N. Roberts III, Babbitt’s previous attorney, who on May 2 sought a restraining order and a lien for at least 25% of the gross amount of any settlement.

'I have no idea why you’re talking right now.'

Judge Reyes ultimately denied Roberts’ request for a temporary restraining order, but not before the tense hearing descended into shouting. At one point, she repeatedly snapped at a Judicial Watch attorney representing Aaron Babbitt and the estate of his late wife.

Judicial Watch filed the $30 million wrongful death lawsuit in January 2024, alleging the federal government bears responsibility for Ashli Babbitt’s death during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd fatally shot Babbitt. The Biden administration later moved the case from San Diego to Washington, D.C., a change Judicial Watch has opposed.

The suit claims Byrd acted negligently when he stepped from a concealed position inside the House Speaker’s Lobby and fired a single shot at 2:44 p.m. as Babbitt attempted to climb through a shattered window. According to the complaint, Byrd failed to follow the proper use-of-force protocols and violated multiple departmental policies.

A trial in the suit is scheduled for July 2026.

Joseph M. Hanneman/Blaze News

During the hastily called hearing, Reyes scolded Judicial Watch attorneys Robert Sticht and Richard Driscoll for allegedly not communicating with Roberts quickly enough regarding the potential settlement.

Judge Reyes, nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden in 2022, repeatedly lost her temper during the 30-minute proceeding. At one point she shouted, “Mr. Stitch [sic], stop talking! Stop talking!”

At the time, Sticht (pronounced “sticked”) was explaining that Judicial Watch objects to Roberts being a party to the case as an “intervenor” while settlement negotiations are ongoing. He said even after a settlement agreement is signed, Roberts would have at least 30 days to seek attorney’s fees for his work.

The judge again cut him off.

“I have no idea why you’re talking right now,” Reyes said. “It’s not responsive to anything Mr. Driscoll and I are talking about right now, OK?”

Sticht replied, “Oh, it is.”

“Mr. Stitch [sic], it’s really not,” Reyes snapped. “You know how I know it's not relevant? I’m the one who determines whether I think it’s relevant. I’m telling you it’s not only not relevant; it’s totally unresponsive to what Mr. Driscoll and I are talking about.”

Attorneys said they hope to get a settlement agreement signed by May 8. Judge Reyes had already set a May 12 hearing to handle Roberts’ original February 2025 motion to intervene in the case and seek attorney’s fees. Judicial Watch filed its objections to that motion shortly after.

Roberts said he received a phone call from a national news media outlet on May 1 saying a settlement had been reached in the Babbitt lawsuit. He told the reporter he knew nothing about it. Roberts filed the motion for the temporary restraining order at 10:40 a.m. Friday.

Sam Montoya/Blaze News

When Sticht made a remark about Roberts getting his case information from a reporter, Judge Reyes cut him off.

“When I tell you just stop talking, you stop talking. And you are not going to make snide remarks in your responses to my questions that are not only snide but don’t answer my question,” Reyes said. “OK? So my question is not about where Mr. Roberts gets his information.”

“I’m frankly quite annoyed that a national reporter got to Mr. Roberts before any of you,” the judge added. “I just think that is beyond unprofessional.”

Judge Reyes said she could not understand why Judicial Watch did not respond to Roberts in the hours before Friday’s hearing was scheduled. She also said Roberts should have contacted Judicial Watch sooner to advise them of his motion.

'Your objection is noted.'

Roberts said he had tried to reach Sticht and Driscoll shortly before he filed the motion Friday morning.

“But that does not excuse you all not trying to reach Mr. Roberts to try to head this off at the pass by making the simple point that, yes, there was a settlement in principle,” Judge Reyes said. “I mean, that would’ve been just a matter of professional courtesy to call Mr. Roberts back since he didn’t have the information when he called you in the morning.”

Judicial Watch attorneys said the Justice Department lawyers drafted the agreement in principle late Thursday. Sticht said he had not yet reviewed it.

Judge Reyes suggested Babbitt’s attorneys were not being fully forthcoming, which prompted an objection by Sticht.

“From on now on, anything settlement related, you all need to be in communication with each other [in] real time,” Reyes said. “All right? I’m done with this, ‘I ... have this little bit of piece of the case and so [I] can’t tell you anything about this other piece of the case.’”

Aaron Babbitt

“I object to that, your honor,” Sticht replied.

“Your objection is noted,” the judge replied, not allowing Sticht to continue.

Driscoll told the judge that his only role in the Babbitt matter is representing Aaron Babbitt and Ashli Babbitt’s estate regarding attorney Roberts’ efforts to become an intervenor.

Roberts told Judge Reyes he has no desire to be a party to settlement discussions, but wants timely notification of finalization of any settlement so he can seek a lien.

Reyes ordered the parties to file a status report on May 5 or 6.

Aaron Babbitt hired Roberts on Jan. 18, 2021, and Roberts investigated the killing in preparation for filing a lawsuit. Roberts withdrew from the case in late February 2022, and Judicial Watch later agreed to represent Babbitt in seeking justice for his late wife.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!