Luis Felipe Restrepo
How Judge Restrepo rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Restrepo
Luis Felipe Restrepo is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Restrepo received a commission on January 13, 2016. Judge Restrepo previously served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, commissioned there on June 19, 2013.
Judge Restrepo's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Restrepo'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 Restrepo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In In re FTX Trading, he treated the statutory word “shall” as a mandatory command that left no discretion over the specified action.
“The meaning of the word 'shall' is not ambiguous. It is a 'word of command,' ... that 'normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion,'”
In Ingram v. Experian, he declined to create an exception to the statute beyond those Congress wrote.
“When Congress provides exceptions in a statute, it does not follow that courts have authority to create others.”
In a contract appeal, he looked to the full agreement and treated a reasonable competing reading as a reason to send contractual intent to trial.
“We thus cannot say there is ‘only one reasonable interpretation’ of the contract.”
Procedural preferences
In Chapman’s sentencing appeal, he held that denying time to submit family support letters infringed the defendant’s right to allocution and required resentencing.
“Because the letters could have impacted the sentence imposed, the Court’s decision to deny their admission infringed on Chapman’s right to allocution.”
In Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, he adopted a reasonable-reader standard for evaluating whether the disputed credit reports were misleading under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and affirmed judgment for Trans Union after reading the reports as a whole.
“we adopt a 'reasonable reader' standard which determines how a reasonable reader would have comprehended a report.”
Cautions
In Rush, he affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on an excessive-force claim after accepting the district court’s account that the driver posed no immediate threat when the officer fired.
“We agree and will affirm the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity and summary judgment to Officer Nicoletti.”
In United States v. Cora-Alicea, he vacated a drug sentence because the district court mistakenly treated nearly all of the defendant's mitigation as already captured by Guidelines adjustments rather than considering it at sentencing.
“Here, because Victor Cora-Alicea’s sentencing judge mistakenly believed that nearly the entirety of his mitigation was accounted for by adjustments to his Guidelines range, we will vacate and remand for resentencing.”
In his Anash dissent, Restrepo would evaluate a RLUIPA land-use burden through the totality of the circumstances, including whether the religious user reasonably expected the use, imposed the burden on itself, or had feasible alternatives.
“The circuits consider two factors that are particularly apposite here: (1) whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of religious land use or whether the plaintiff’s burden was self-imposed; and (2) whether the plaintiff had ready alternatives.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the District Court, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Regardless of whether the letters would have in fact brought about a lesser sentence, the law – as well as a sense of basic fairness – dictates that Chapman not be prevented from presenting mitigating information because of his own counsel's oversight and the Court's congested docket. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for resentencing.”
“Accordingly, we will deny Sambare's Petition because we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).”
“Given the foregoing, we will affirm the decision of the District Court.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court's ruling concerning Javitz's due process claim. We will, however, reverse its ruling regarding Javitz's First Amendment retaliation claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court's judgment sentencing Seibert to prison for 360 months.”
“In conclusion, Trooper Corrie, while participating in a coordinated effort to serve an arrest warrant on an armed robbery suspect, reasonably used lethal force against a dog who, unrebutted testimony shows, aggressively charged at him, growled, and showed his teeth, as though about to attack. We will thus affirm the District Court's order granting summary judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand to the Benefits Review Board for a determination of benefits.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the District Court's grant of NVR's mo- tion to dismiss and remand this case for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”
“Although we are sympathetic to Yasin's compelling circumstances, our lack of jurisdiction restricts us from re- viewing the underlying merits of his motion to reopen. Therefore, for these reasons, we will deny his petition for re- view.”
“Accordingly, we will affirm the district courts' order granting Trans Union's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
Draft for Judge Restrepo with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Restrepo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Restrepo's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace