Toby J. Heytens
How Judge Heytens rules, drawn from 51 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Heytens
Toby Jay Heytens is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Heytens received a commission on November 2, 2021.
Judge Heytens's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Heytens'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 Heytens decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an immigration-waiver case, Heytens used sentence structure and ordinary English to reject an agency's extra living-parent condition. The present-tense verb described the applicant, while nothing in the text required the citizen parent to remain alive.
“Simply put, ‘an ordinary speaker of English would say that’ a still-living child remains the child of a deceased parent.”
In a sovereign-immunity case involving airport screening, Heytens applied the statute's express, disjunctive definition without adding a criminal-investigation limitation. The fact that Congress had not anticipated a later-created agency did not narrow language that covered the agency's searches.
“The problem with the government’s argument is that it reprises a tactic the Supreme Court has already rejected: ‘read[ing] into the text additional limitations designed to narrow the scope of the law enforcement proviso.’”
In a political-affiliation case, Heytens treated a prior panel's resolution of the same legal issue as binding even though the earlier opinion did not address a newly proposed argument. Factual distinctions could not support a rule that would require declaring the earlier disposition wrong.
“But if stare decisis means anything, it means a future court lacks the authority to say a previous court was wrong about how it resolved the actual legal issue before it.”
Procedural preferences
In a sentencing appeal, Heytens distinguished record evidence that could support a finding from a finding the district court actually made. Appellate review could not supply a missing causation finding or affirm on a rationale the sentencing court never adopted.
“But whether the district court could have made a finding that would have survived appellate review is different from whether the court actually made that finding.”
In a prisoner civil-rights case, Heytens kept the video exception to ordinary summary-judgment rules narrow. A recording permits rejection of firsthand evidence only when its authenticity is undisputed and it makes a material part of that account demonstrably false beyond reasonable dispute.
“Those arguments might well persuade a factfinder, but they profoundly misunderstand the role of the court at the summary judgment stage. At this point, the sort of things the officers are asking us to do—weigh evidence and draw inferences from the facts—have no place.”
In his dissent in United States v. Flood, Heytens argued that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to resolve a credibility dispute over a sworn declaration instead of discounting the account as self-serving on the paper record.
“evaluating ‘credibility’ ‘is what evidentiary hearings are for.’”
In a detention-conditions appeal, Heytens held that claims against state judges lacked the adversity required for federal jurisdiction and directed dismissal without prejudice, while allowing claims against the county to proceed.
“the plaintiffs and the judicial defendants are not ‘adverse’”
In a hospital-consent-order appeal, Heytens preserved the substantive dismissals but required the jurisdictional dismissal of T.M.’s claims to be without prejudice.
“claims are dismissed without prejudice.”
Cautions
Would not suppress evidence obtained under a facially valid warrant when the executing officers relied on it objectively reasonably.
“suppression is inappropriate so long as the officers were ‘objectively reasonable’ in relying on that warrant.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Because the answer is no, we vacate the tax court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.”
“In No. 24-1422 and No. 24-1426, the judgments are reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In No. 24-1423, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to modify the judgment to state that the dismissal is without prejudice. The cross appeals (Nos. 24-1425, 24-1427, and 24-1429) are dismissed.”
“We thus vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for resentencing.”
“The judgment is reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.”
“We thus vacate the district court’s decision granting the officers’ summary judgment motion and remand for further proceedings.”
“The district court’s order is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Draft for Judge Heytens with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Heytens, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Heytens's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace