Barrington D. Parker Jr.
How Judge Parker rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Parker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an off-campus student-speech appeal, Parker evaluated the nature of the expression, where and how it occurred, and the school's regulatory interests in light of the reduced authority schools possess away from campus.
“In analyzing this contention, we consider (i) the nature of Leroy’s speech, (ii) where, when, and how he spoke, and (iii) the school’s interests in regulating that speech, in light of the features of off-campus speech identified by the Supreme Court that ‘diminish the strength of the unique educational characteristics that might call for special First Amendment leeway,’”
In a commercial-speech challenge to a real-estate fee law, Parker rejected the premise that only an outright ban implicates the First Amendment. A law that makes publication prohibitively costly can require constitutional scrutiny even when it leaves speech formally available.
“However, a law need not prohibit speech to trigger judicial scrutiny. Laws that merely burden speech may also be subject to review under the First Amendment.”
In the same housing-law appeal, Parker assessed substantial contractual impairment by examining the bargain, the parties' reasonable expectations, and whether the law prevented them from protecting or restoring their rights.
“To determine under step one whether the FARE Act substantially impairs the contractual rights of brokers and landlords who have entered into tenant-pays exclusive listing contracts, we consider ‘the extent to which the law undermines the contractual bargain, interferes with a party's reasonable expectations, and prevents the party from safeguarding or reinstating his rights.’”
Procedural preferences
In an illegal-reentry appeal, Parker treated later reinstatements of an invalid removal order as continuations rather than new orders. They could not supply a valid predicate or shift the prejudice inquiry to later circumstances.
“Because the subsequent reinstatements of the invalid 2000 removal order are not new removal orders, they do not supply a valid basis for the illegal reentry conviction that is the subject of this appeal, nor is it appropriate to look at the circumstances at the time they were entered to assess prejudice.”
Cautions
In a fraud appeal, Parker upheld limits on generalized evidence that lawyers had helped draft ordinary corporate documents. Without full disclosure to counsel, that involvement had little relevance to good faith and presented a substantial risk of confusing the jury.
“The fact that lawyers drafted run-of-the-mill corporate documents provided little to no evidence relevant to Bankman-Fried’s good faith in using them but created a substantial risk of jury confusion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Petition for review GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.”
“Because the administrative record supports the agency's finding that Vasconcelos waived his right to a hearing by submitting an ESTA application and entering the United States pursuant to the VWP, the petition is DENIED.”
“We DENY the petition.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings.”
“For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment on res judicata grounds and remand the District's action against BP and Shell to the Southern District of New York for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District Court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM IN PART, VACATE IN PART, and REMAND to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”
“Because we are confident that a properly instructed jury would have based the petitioners' 924(c) convictions upon a valid predicate crime of violence, we AFFIRM.”
“AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED”
Draft for Judge Parker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Parker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Parker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace