Robert E. Bacharach
How Judge Bacharach rules, drawn from 81 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bacharach
Robert Edwin Bacharach is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Bacharach received a commission on February 28, 2013.
Judge Bacharach's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bacharach'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 Bacharach decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sanchez v. Hartley, he applied the rule against knowingly or recklessly using false information to start legal process that causes an unreasonable seizure.
“we have held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers from knowingly or recklessly relying on false information to institute legal process when that process results in an unreasonable seizure.”
In Gonzalez Aguilar v. Garland, he found that the record compelled a finding of a pattern or practice of persecution against transgender women in Honduras.
“any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find a pattern or practice of persecution against transgender women in Honduras.”
Procedural preferences
In Nelson v. Board of County Commissioners, he rejected using a Rule 59(e) motion to revisit issues already addressed or arguments available in earlier briefing.
“Rule 59(e) motions are not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”
In United States v. Simpson-El, he found the district court’s brief explanation sufficient to show why a settlement materially changed the defendant’s finances.
“the district court's simple explanation was adequate to inform the parties why the settlement would constitute a material change in economic circumstances.”
Cautions
In Lincoln’s First Amendment retaliation appeal, he held that the plaintiffs had not identified precedent clearly establishing the challenged actions as adverse employment actions, and reversed the denial of qualified immunity.
“The assertion of qualified immunity imposes a heavy burden on the plaintiffs, requiring them to point to existing precedent or the clear weight of authority establishing the existence of a constitutional violation.”
In United States v. Nixon, he described the absence of prejudice as nearly fatal to the defendant’s speedy-trial claim.
“the lack of prejudice is ‘nearly fatal’ to a claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We affirm: (1) the exclusion of Ms. Eisenhour’s testimony during the disciplinary proceedings involving Judge Storey, and (2) the award of summary judgment on the claims against the County for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, liability under Title VII, and violation of the Whistleblower Act relating to the refusal to rehire her. But, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact existed on: (1) the claim against the County under the Whistleblower Act and the First Amendment claim based on closing of the Justice Court, and (2) the claims against Judge Storey based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, on these claims, we reverse the award of summary judgment.”
“Thus, § 2255(f)(3) does not apply and all reasonable jurists would conclude that the § 2255 motion was untimely. In these circumstances, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.”
“Because Mr. Brown was not incarcerated beyond the terms of the Muskogee sentence, the § 1983 claim fails as a matter of law... Thus, we affirm the award of summary judgment to the Defendants.”
“We conclude no reasonable fact-finder could infer retaliation; thus, we affirm the district court's award of summary judgment to the Department of Interior.”
“He has failed to satisfy his burdens. Thus, we deny the petitions for review.”
“We reverse because the direct-threat jury instruction constituted error.”
“We agree with the government based on (1) deference to the way the Board of Immigration Appeals has interpreted § 1226(c) and (2) the continued duty to impose mandatory detention even if the Attorney General had waited too long to take custody of Mr. Olmos. For both reasons, we reverse.”
“Mr. Hancock then turned to federal district court, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The court denied relief, and Mr. Hancock has appealed. We affirm.”
“As a result, the county could not incur liability for failing to provide adequate training. III. Disposition We affirm.”
“We affirm the district court's denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity; and we dismiss the defendants' appeal of the district court's ruling on the statute of limitations, holding that we lack jurisdiction on this part of the appeal.”
Draft for Judge Bacharach with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bacharach, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bacharach's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace