Andre Bernard Mathis
How Judge Mathis rules, drawn from 63 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mathis
Andre Bernard Mathis is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Mathis received a commission on September 27, 2022.
Judge Mathis's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Mathis'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 Mathis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mackinac Center's challenge to federal student-loan policies, he affirmed dismissal because its complaint alleged only speculative economic and competitive injuries, not an injury in fact.
“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.”
Dissenting in Ream's home-distilling challenge, he concluded that the government's refusal to disavow enforcement alone did not establish a credible threat of prosecution and would have affirmed dismissal for lack of standing.
“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.”
Mathis found no traceable application-stage injury where the plaintiff abandoned the application before submitting it and then attributed the result to the defendants.
“Because Roberts chose not to take that first step (finishing and submitting the application), he cannot connect his application-stage injury to Progressive and Circular Board’s allegedly discriminatory actions.”
Applying the categorical approach, Mathis held that the elements of the Ohio aggravated-robbery offense necessarily included the state's robbery offense.
“An offender cannot commit § 2911.01(A)(1) aggravated robbery without also committing § 2911.02(A)(2) robbery.”
For online conduct, Mathis required each defendant's own deliberate connection to the forum and found the use of an Ohio server insufficient when it was fortuitous rather than chosen.
“Overall, Carbone failed to show that using an Ohio-based server was ‘[Defendants’] own choice and not random, isolated, or fortuitous,’ or that Defendants had ‘fair warning’ that the location of a website server ‘may subject [them] to’ Ohio’s jurisdiction.”
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 its reasoning value (his justiciability views); Excluded from the appellate-disposition outcome counts because his vote did not control the disposition.
“For these reasons, we VACATE Wilson's sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.”
“For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's order denying Taylor's motion to suppress and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment.”
“For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”
“For the reasons above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and GRANT the government's motion to take judicial notice of the charging petition for Jamison's juvenile case.”
“For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment and GRANT the government's motion to take judicial notice.”
“For these reasons, we DENY the petition for review.”
Draft for Judge Mathis with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mathis, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mathis's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace