Jane R. Roth
How Judge Roth rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Roth decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an immigration notice case, Roth treated Congress's use of "shall" and its incorporation of the full notice provision as mandatory. A notice stopped the residence clock only after the required information, including the hearing's time and place, had been supplied within the statutory period.
“We therefore hold that an NTA served ‘under section 1229(a)’ is effective, for purposes of the ‘stop-time’ rule, only when it includes each of the items that Congress instructs ‘shall be given in person to the alien.’”
In a labor-arbitration case, Roth applied intervening Supreme Court decisions requiring ordinary contract principles even though that meant overruling circuit precedent she had joined. Because the arbitration clauses lacked their own duration terms, the agreements' general expiration dates controlled.
“Our review of Tackett and Reese convinces us that the holdings in those two cases undermine our opinion in Luden’s. For that reason, we hold that Luden’s is overruled and that, as a matter of contract law, the arbitration provisions here, because they do not have their own durational clauses, expired with the CBAs on the CBAs’ termination date.”
In a federal habeas case, Roth distinguished a state procedural rule from a substantive extra element. A state innocence requirement for withdrawing a guilty plea could restrict state relief, but failure to prove that added element could not procedurally forfeit a federal ineffective-assistance claim.
“But a state cannot add a substantive element to the proof necessary to obtain federal relief. A habeas petitioner’s inability to meet more restrictive state standards for relief cannot result in a forfeiture of his federal constitutional claims.”
In reviewing discretionary immigration relief, Roth required the agency to meaningfully weigh the favorable evidence its own test identified. A brief reference to rehabilitation was insufficient where the record contained sustained employment, remorse, community support, family hardship, and no later offenses.
“However, the BIA’s discussion of Tipu’s rehabilitation is hardly a ‘complete’ review.”
Procedural preferences
In an en banc sentencing case, Roth required a party to object after a procedural defect becomes apparent when sentence is pronounced. The contemporaneous objection gives the sentencing court an immediate chance to address an omitted argument or inadequate explanation and avoids plain-error review.
“We now hold that in such a situation, when a party wishes to take an appeal based on a procedural error at sentencing — such as the court’s failure to meaningfully consider that party’s arguments or to explain one or more aspects of the sentence imposed — that party must object to the procedural error complained of after sentence is imposed in order to avoid plain error review on appeal.”
In agency review, Roth requires the agency to connect its technical method to the specific pollutants or criteria that drove its decision; an unexplained proxy is insufficient.
“NJDEP was not required to select Petitioners’ preferred monitoring method, but it was required to connect its chosen method to the pollutants and criteria that drove its water quality concerns.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because we find that section 1341(b) does create an impermissible mandatory presumption, we will reverse Parrilla's conviction on Count VII.”
“As we conclude that the BIA failed to properly consider important factors in Tipu's favor, we will vacate the decision of the BIA and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“We disagree and will grant Chang's petition.”
“We will affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
“Accordingly, we will vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand this case to the District Court to appoint counsel and hold a new evidentiary hearing.”
“We will, therefore, affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
“For the reasons stated below, we will vacate the final judgment and remand this case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the reasons that follow, we will reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand both claims to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Because we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact, we will reverse the granting of summary judgment by the District Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Applying the narrow scope of review available under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 (1996), we will affirm the District Court's decision to grant habeas relief based on Lam's responses, but we will reverse its decision to grant relief based on their fruits.”
“We will vacate both the District Court's upward departure and its supervised release condition.”
“We will reverse the District Court's dismissal of this action.”
Draft for Judge Roth with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Roth, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Roth's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace