Richard E. N. Federico
How Judge Federico rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Federico decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He resolves statutory questions with close textual work, reading a disputed word in light of the surrounding provisions and the statute as a whole, and treating the ordinary meaning of a term as controlling unless context clearly displaces it, and treats legislative history as a confirmation of a reading already reached from the text, not its foundation.
“Given the ‘presumption that a given term is used to mean the same thing throughout a statute,’ the preposition ‘in’ does not preclude above-ground miners working in an underground coal mine from qualifying for the rebuttable presumption without a showing of substantial similarity.”
In construing remedial and exemption statutes he reads them in light of their protective purpose and, where a term is genuinely ambiguous, resolves the doubt in favor of the party the statute was enacted to protect rather than defaulting to the narrowest possible reading.
“The refundable child tax credit caused Garcia-Morales's refund, and we liberally define such causation, making the refund wholly exempt under Colorado law.”
In a public-employee speech case, Federico declined to perform fact-heavy interest balancing at the pleading stage and construed the employee's disruption allegations in his favor. A complaint should identify the public concern addressed and distinguish disruption caused by the government's response from disruption caused by the speech itself.
“The district court erred by citing Brown’s allegations in support of dismissal and concluding that Brown alleged that he – not the City of Tulsa – caused internal disruption.”
In an immigration-detention case, Federico read the statute's specific text together with its broader structure and decades of government practice. His holding distinguished people detained after entry in the country's interior from applicants stopped at the border and preserved eligibility for an individualized bond decision.
“We hold that noncitizens who entered the United States and were thereafter detained in the interior of the country are usually subject to § 1226(a) (and thus eligible for bond), not § 1225(b)(2)(A).”
Procedural preferences
On review of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, he draws every reasonable inference for the plaintiff and refuses to resolve a fact-bound affirmative defense, such as when a claim accrued, by filling gaps in the complaint against the pleader.
“on a motion to dismiss, when there are gaps in the plaintiff's complaint, we fill those gaps with reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the plaintiff, not against her. In disregarding these basic principles, the district court made the kind of fact- finding barred by Rule 12(b)(6).”
Federico treated the accused's knowledge of the specific alleged effect of prescribed medication as a jury question in an involuntary-intoxication defense. An instruction should not convert general awareness of possible side effects into conclusive knowledge of the particular psychosis asserted at trial.
“What matters is whether a defendant had knowledge of the specific kind of intoxicating effect that is alleged to have occurred.”
In a trade-secret case, Federico confined an evidence-rule exclusion to witnesses actually offering expert testimony. A blanket order should distinguish lay testimony based on personal knowledge from opinions that depend on specialized expertise.
“we reverse the Rule 702 Order, which should be limited to exclude only expert witnesses, like Adamy, who are subject to Rule 702.”
Cautions
He holds the government to its evidentiary burden with real bite in criminal cases: where the prosecution takes a shortcut on an essential element, here, proving a jurisdictional fact through an unauthenticated, litigation-prepared document, he will find the error not harmless and reverse the conviction outright, even in a case involving grave and sympathetic facts.
“Because the error applies to all four counts and negates an essential element in each count, the only proper remedy is for this Court to reverse the convictions because an element of each crime was not proved by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
He enforces preservation and waiver rules strictly: an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief, or pressed on appeal without a plain-error argument after being omitted below, will be deemed waived and go unreviewed, however meritorious it might have been if timely raised.
“When an appellant fails to preserve an issue and also fails to make a plain-error argument on appeal, we ordinarily deem the issue waived (rather than merely forfeited) and decline to review the issue at all”
In reviewing a firearm-purchase age restriction at the preliminary-injunction stage, Federico required a clear and unequivocal entitlement to extraordinary relief. A movant must develop both likelihood of success and irreparable harm rather than rely on the constitutional label alone.
“The likelihood-of-success and irreparable-harm factors are ‘the most critical’ in the analysis.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“AFFIRMED.”
“The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”
“The district court's entry of summary judgment against Estrada is AFFIRMED.”
“The petition for review is DENIED.”
“We REVERSE the convictions and sentence and REMAND with instructions to the district court to vacate the judgment and conduct further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“we reverse the district court's order and remand with instructions to dissolve the injunction.”
“we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“we affirm.”
“We REVERSE the Rule 702 Order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Draft for Judge Federico with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Federico, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Federico's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace