Julius N. Richardson
How Judge Richardson rules, drawn from 79 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Richardson
Julius Ness Richardson is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Richardson received a commission on August 20, 2018.
Judge Richardson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Richardson'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).
How Judge Richardson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. Red River Coal, Richardson affirmed summary judgment for the operator because the Surface Mining Act’s saving clause did not permit liability for discharges protected by a Clean Water Act permit.
“We are not unsympathetic to concerns about the purity of the water that Virginians rely on every day. But we must follow the text of the statute that was democratically passed by Congress.”
In Colorado Navarro v. Bondi, he denied review of a torture-protection claim because substantial evidence supported the Board's reversal of the immigration judge's credibility and future-torture findings, while explaining that clear-error review still entails scrutiny of the record.
“Clear error review is not no review.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Castro-Aleman, Richardson affirmed the illegal-reentry conviction because the defendant could not establish prejudice from the alleged defect in his removal hearing.
“We are ... entitled to affirm on any ground appearing in the record, including theories not relied upon or rejected by the district court.”
In Wideman v. Innovative Fibers, Richardson vacated a jurisdictional dismissal because South Carolina’s workers’ compensation exclusivity rule affected the substantive claim but could not remove federal diversity jurisdiction.
“even though states can define the substantive rights that are enforced in diversity jurisdiction, they cannot limit the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts, even in diversity cases.”
Cautions
In Rice v. Adams, Richardson reversed denial of the officers’ motion to dismiss because the Section 1983 complaint grouped defendants together without alleging what each officer individually did or knew.
“Lumping defendants together won't do.”
In Frazier v. Prince George’s County, Richardson vacated denial of a preliminary injunction because the district court did not state the findings and conclusions required by Rule 52(a)(2).
“Rule 52(a)(2) is meant to save us and litigants from having to play detective when it comes to orders granting or denying preliminary injunctions.”
In his dissent in Fairfax County School Board v. McMahon, Richardson viewed the school boards’ demand for restored advance federal grant payments as a claim arising from their grant contracts.
“That demand for prepayment under their grant contracts is the gravamen of their claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Thus, Ibarra's petition must be DENIED.”
“Lopez's petition is thus DENIED.”
“Colorado's petition is DENIED.”
“We thus must vacate the sentence and send this case back for resentencing.”
“Because we likewise find his argument unpersuasive, we affirm.”
“AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED”
“REVERSED AND REMANDED”
“So the district court's judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.”
“For the reasons stated, we vacate McCall's sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing by a different judge. VACATED AND REMANDED”
“Here, no such pressures existed, so the district court's order is AFFIRMED.”
“Finding no abuse of discretion in those determinations, the district court must be AFFIRMED.”
“We see it for what it really is: a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge which he renounced any right to bring. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.”
Draft for Judge Richardson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Richardson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Richardson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace