Toby J. Heytens

How Judge Heytens rules, drawn from 41 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Joseph R. Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
2021-11-02
ABA rating
Well Qualified
Education
Macalester College (B.A., 1997); University of Virginia School of Law (J.D., 2000)
Signed orders read
41

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.”

Treats a credibility dispute supported by a sworn declaration as a reason to hold a post-conviction evidentiary hearing rather than discounting the account as self-serving on the paper record.

“evaluating ‘credibility’ ‘is what evidentiary hearings are for.’”

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.

United States v. Jonathan Revels
23-4688 · 2026-05-27
Appeal (defendant-appellant Jonathan Revels) Granted

“The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Catherine L. LaRosa v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
24-2034 · 2026-05-18
Petition for review (petitioner-appellant taxpayer (Catherine LaRosa)) Granted

“Because the answer is no, we vacate the tax court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Davonte J. Coe
24-4111 · 2025-11-12
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“The judgment is AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Herbert Murillo-Lopez
23-4302 · 2025-08-18
Appeal (defendant-appellant Herbert Murillo-Lopez) Denied

“The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.”

Muna al-Suyid v. Khalifa Hifter (consolidated with Hamza v. Hifter and Elzagally v. Hifter)
24-1422(L), 24-1423, 24-1426 (with cross-appeals 24-1425, 24-1427, 24-1429) · 2025-06-05
Appeal (plaintiffs-appellants (families of alleged victims)) Granted in part

“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.”

United States v. Samuel Pierre Joseph
24-4108 · 2025-05-28
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“The judgment is AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Trevor Raekwon Seward
23-4431 · 2025-04-25
Appeal (defendant-appellant) Denied

“The judgment is AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Avila
No. 23-4731 · 2025-04-14
Appeal (appellant (defendant Luis Ramirez Avila)) Granted

“We thus vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for resentencing.”

Michael Moshoures v. City of North Myrtle Beach
24-1293 · 2025-03-11
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant bar owner (Michael Moshoures)) Granted in part

“The judgment is reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Folse v. Hoffman
No. 23-1709 · 2024-11-20
Appeal (appellant (pro se plaintiff Jay Folse)) Denied

“The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.”

Thomas D. Alexander v. Sergeant Connor
23-6151 · 2024-06-24
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant prisoner (Thomas Alexander)) Granted

“The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Global Innovative Concepts, LLC v. State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management
No. 23-2053 · 2024-06-18
Appeal (appellant (defendant State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management)) Granted

“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