Andre Bernard Mathis
How Judge Mathis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Standing is the gatekeeper. He demands concrete, particularized, well-pleaded factual allegations of injury and is unmoved by 'legal conclusions disguised as facts' or a 'speculative chain of possibilities'; a plaintiff who is not the direct object of the challenged government action faces an 'uphill battle' and must plead 'much more.'
“the complaint falls short of pleading an economic injury because it offers legal conclusions disguised as facts. ... The complaint does not include specific, concrete facts showing an actual economic injury.”
In preenforcement challenges he applies the circuit's four credible-threat-of-prosecution factors strictly: a single favorable factor (e.g. the government's refusal to disavow) is insufficient, and decades-old or out-of-circuit enforcement does not establish an imminent threat. A would-be plaintiff must show 'some combination' of the factors.
“Ream has established only one of the four factors that show a credible threat of enforcement. And that factor -- disavowal -- is just one data point among many ... One is insufficient.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We REVERSE the district court's order dismissing Chrestman's claims against Williams and Lopez. We VACATE the district court's order granting Metro Nashville judgment on the pleadings. We REMAND to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment.”
Preenforcement constitutional challenge to the 1868 federal home-distilling ban. The majority (Kethledge, joined by Siler) reversed the district court's standing dismissal and, on the merits, upheld the ban under the Necessary and Proper Clause as a means of collecting the excise tax on spirits. Mathis AUTHORED a DISSENT: applying the Sixth Circuit's four credible-threat-of-prosecution factors, he found only one (refusal to disavow) favored the plaintiff -- no conviction in 50+ years, no warning letter to Ream, no public-enforcement provision -- and would affirm the dismissal for lack of Article III standing without reaching the merits. Recorded for reasoning-layer value (his justiciability views); EXCLUDED from the appellate-disposition outcome counts because his vote did not control the disposition.