Michael R. Murphy
How Judge Murphy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On Fourth Amendment suppression questions he is a consistent architect and applier of the good-faith exception: where officers reasonably relied on then-settled law -- a warrant, a statute, or binding circuit precedent -- he declines to suppress even after that law is later held invalid, reasoning that exclusion deters police misconduct and serves no purpose when the officer did nothing wrong.
“it would be proper for this court to apply the good-faith exception to a search justified under the settled case law of a United States Court of Appeals, but later rendered unconstitutional by a Supreme Court decision.”
He holds administrative agencies to their own precedent and reasoning: an agency may not reach a result that departs from or is irreconcilable with its own settled interpretations without a reasoned explanation, and an interpretation at odds with the agency's longstanding view earns little deference.
“The Tobar-Lobo interpretation of moral turpitude is, moreover, at odds with the BIA’s own longstanding precedent.”
Procedural preferences
He treats statutory text as controlling and resists judicially-fashioned 'hybrid' or atextual procedures: where a habeas statute authorizes denial only of an entire application, a district court may not invent a claim-by-claim partial merits denial, and where the government sues in its sovereign capacity to collect federal taxes the federal, not state, limitations period governs regardless of the claim's label.
“The plain and unambiguous language of this statute refers to the denial of “an application for a writ of habeas corpus” rather than to denial of claims contained within the application resulting only in a partial denial on the merits.”
Cautions
In First Amendment cases he applies strict scrutiny rigorously and places the full burden on the government: evidence about a handful of bad actors will not justify a blanket restriction on a whole class of speakers, and the state must affirmatively prove that narrower alternatives would be ineffective before a categorical ban can stand.
“Because the record contains insufficient evidence to conclude that non-residents, as a class, threaten the integrity or reliability of the initiative process, Oklahoma has failed to prove that banning all non-resident circulators is a narrowly tailored means of meeting its compelling interest.”
He reads immigration removal grounds narrowly and by the categorical approach, distinguishing regulatory offenses of omission (reporting, licensing, and registration failures) from conduct that is inherently wrong: a crime is not one of 'moral turpitude' merely because the underlying status is serious if the offense of conviction itself involves no victim, harm, or evil intent.
“it is the sexual offense that is reprehensible, not the failure to register.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms.”
“this court reverses the order of disgorgement and remands to the district court for further proceedings.”
“This court concludes the district court improperly ruled that certain of Plaintiff’s expressions relating to racial equity within the school district were not protected under the First Amendment for purposes of Plaintiff’s civil rights and retaliatory discharge claims. We affirm on all other issues.”
“Although we conclude the warrant was not supported by probable cause, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.”
“This court REVERSES the summary judgment and VACATES as moot the order on attorney’s fees.”
“Because this court determines such detention to be statutorily authorized ... we reverse.”
“affirms the denial of habeas relief as to those issues relating to the guilt phase of Thomas’ trial, reverses the denial of habeas relief as to Thomas’ sentence of death, and remands to the district court to grant the writ consistent with this opinion.”
“Although this court concludes the affidavit in support of the search warrant was not sufficient to establish probable cause, we exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.”
“this court affirms the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”
“The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed.”
“Because Defendant has not demonstrated reversible error, this court affirms his convictions.”
“Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands.”
Put Judge Murphy's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Murphy actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Murphy's own signed orders and cites them.