Jennifer Lee Mascott
How Judge Mascott rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mascott
Jennifer Lee Mascott is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Mascott received a commission on October 10, 2025.
Judge Mascott's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Mascott'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).
- Third Circuit Motions Practice ↗
- Motions to Exceed the Page or Word Limitations ↗
- Motions for Extensions of Time and Clarification of L.A.R. 110 ↗
- Vacating Option B for Filing of an Appendix ↗
- Reduced Number of Copies of Briefs Required ↗
- Stays in Immigration Cases ↗
- Submission of Audio and Video Files ↗
How Judge Mascott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In her Michelin dissent from the denial of rehearing, she invoked the clear-statement rule for waivers of federal sovereign immunity in the detainees’ attorney-fee dispute.
“U.S. Supreme Court precedent instructs that we are to interpret statutes to waive federal sovereign immunity only if such a waiver is clear from the statutory text.”
In her Buele Morocho dissent, Mascott read the admission provisions together with the 1996 statutory structure and rejected a literal reading that would impose stricter detention rules on people who requested lawful entry at the border than on those who entered undetected.
“The majority’s interpretation is inconsistent with both the text and structure of IIRIRA”
In an en banc concurrence, preferred resolving a firearm restriction challenge on the defendant’s individual record rather than issuing a categorical holding about offense classes.
“constitutional only as applied to Mr. Bost’s individual violent record and not categorically to an entire class of offenses.”
Procedural preferences
In Michelin, she urged en banc rehearing because she believed the panel’s attorney-fee ruling extended existing precedent on immigration detention habeas claims.
“This extension should be reviewed now, before being cemented as circuit precedent. These cases readily merit en banc consideration.”
Cautions
In her S.M. v. Chichester School District dissent from denial of rehearing, she objected to a court-ordered school placement lasting years without annual review and would have returned the student’s education plan to state and local officials.
“This mandating of detailed, finely grained educational policy determinations is not the proper role of federal courts.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
Writing separately when the full court declined to rehear a panel decision awarding Equal Access to Justice Act attorney's fees to immigration detainees, Judge Mascott urged rehearing on the grounds that sovereign-immunity waivers require clear statutory text, that a deep circuit split showed the fee statute was not clear, and that the panel had effectively extended circuit precedent on when the government's position is not 'substantially justified.'
Dissenting from denial of panel rehearing in an IDEA placement dispute, Mascott argued that federal courts should not substitute detailed educational-policy judgments for local and state officials and would have remanded administration of the student's individualized education program to those officials.
Mascott dissented from orders releasing two immigration detainees and read the admission statutes to require mandatory detention for people who entered without inspection and later sought lawful status.
Judge Mascott concurred in the en banc judgment but wrote separately to explain why she would avoid deciding a broader historical starting-date question.
Judge Mascott joined the judgment but would resolve the Second Amendment challenge on the defendant’s individual violent record rather than announce a categorical rule.
“For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.”
Draft for Judge Mascott with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mascott, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mascott's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace