Richard E. N. Federico
How Judge Federico rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Federico
Richard Edward Neel Federico is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Federico received a commission on December 13, 2023.
Judge Federico's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Federico's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Federico decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sunnyside Coal v. Director, he read the statutory phrase in context and held that above-ground workers at an underground mine could qualify for the rebuttable presumption.
“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 a Colorado bankruptcy appeal, he held that a refundable child tax credit caused the debtor’s tax refund, making the full refund exempt under the state’s liberal rule for exemption causation.
“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
In Vasquez-Garcia v. Centurion, Federico reversed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal because the district court drew inferences about claim accrual against the plaintiff from gaps in her complaint instead of resolving those gaps in her favor.
“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
In Harper’s criminal appeal, he held that a litigation-prepared tribal-status letter was inadmissible and its admission was not harmless because it supplied an essential element of each count; the panel reversed and remanded.
“The district court erred by admitting hearsay documents into evidence to prove Harper’s Indian status. This error was not harmless because, without the admission of this evidence, one jurisdictional element of each crime charged was lacking.”
In Estrada v. Smart, he explained that an appellant who neither preserved an issue nor argued plain error on appeal ordinarily waived review.
“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 AFFIRM the entry of summary judgment on Claims One and Two for misappropriation of a trade secret. 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