John M. Walker Jr.
How Judge Walker rules, drawn from 58 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Walker
John Mercer Walker, Jr. is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Walker received a commission on November 27, 1989. Judge Walker previously served on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, commissioned there on July 22, 1985. Judge Walker assumed senior status on September 30, 2006.
Judge Walker's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Walker's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
How Judge Walker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Vecchio, he read § 726(a)(1) to cover all priority claims whenever filed because it contains no timeliness distinction.
“The absence of a timeliness distinction in § 726(a)(1) strongly suggests that this subsection encompasses all priority claims whenever filed.”
In Novak v. Kasaks, he found that the district court had imposed an excessively onerous particularity burden under the securities pleading rules.
“In light of Second Circuit precedent and the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (‘PSLRA’), we hold that the district court erred in: (1) concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to plead sufficient facts to support a strong inference of fraudulent intent; and (2) imposing an exceedingly onerous burden on the plaintiffs with respect to their obligation to plead facts with particularity.”
In Drimal v. Tai, he held that a complaint reciting only legal conclusions did not plausibly state a claim.
“We hold that Drimal’s complaint in its present form does not plausibly state a claim because it recites only legal conclusions.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Lea, he found that the circumstances offered for release pending sentencing after a crime-of-violence conviction did not approach the statutory threshold of exceptional reasons.
“But the circumstances in this case do not approach being ‘exceptional.’”
He respects broad fee-award discretion but withholds deference when the reduction rests on an erroneous legal premise.
“Although we respect the district court’s ample discretion to reduce a fee award, deference is not warranted when the reduction rests on an erroneous premise.”
In Hoffer, the panel held that an adverse inference under Rule 37(e)(2) required proof by a preponderance that the opposing party intended to deprive the movant of the missing electronic evidence. It affirmed the denial of the requested instruction on the record there.
“We hold that to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2), a district court or a jury must find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a party acted with an ‘intent to deprive’ another party of the lost information.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“As we find taxpayers' other arguments to be without merit, the decision and order of the Tax Court is affirmed in all respects.”
“Affirmed.”
“Because we find from the surrounding circumstances and events following the plea allocution that the defendant entered a voluntary guilty plea, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.”
“We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.”
“The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”
“Affirmed.”
“The district court correctly concluded that this antitrust claim cannot survive summary judgment.”
“We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in Judge Munson's thoughtful opinion, Weldon II, 845 F.Supp. 72, and write principally to address the question of jurisdiction.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”
“We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.”
Draft for Judge Walker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Walker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Walker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace