David William McKeague
How Judge McKeague rules, drawn from 51 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McKeague
David William McKeague is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge McKeague received a commission on June 10, 2005. Judge McKeague previously served on the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, commissioned there on February 10, 1992. Judge McKeague assumed senior status on November 1, 2017.
Judge McKeague's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge McKeague'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 McKeague decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rochow's ERISA disability-benefits case, he rejected an additional disgorgement award because benefits, fees, and potential interest already supplied relief for the same denial.
“Contrary to Rochow’s arguments, Rochow is made whole under § 502(a)(1)(B) through recovery of his disability benefits and attorney’s fees, and potential recovery of prejudgment interest, discussed below.”
In Smith's ERISA appeal, he remanded for a full benefits review after finding the administrator relied on an unsupported return-to-work assertion and an unfinished physician interview.
“Although review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is highly deferential, it ‘is not no review, and deference need not be abject.’”
In Paulus's health-care-fraud prosecution, he reinstated the jury's verdict because competing expert evidence about angiogram measurements was for the jury to weigh.
“Even state-of-the-art scientific measurements may sometimes be imprecise. But in these circumstances, it is up to the jury—not the court—to decide whether the government’s proof is worthy of belief.”
Procedural preferences
In Price's pension-benefits appeal, he reviewed the trustees' decision for arbitrariness and held that the district court had used the wrong inquiry.
“The proper inquiry then is whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. When the district court decided the case below, it engaged in the wrong inquiry.”
In the Greektown bankruptcy appeal, he vacated a bar order and remanded because significant issues had not been adequately briefed or addressed below.
“These issues have not been adequately briefed and argued by the parties and were not addressed below. We therefore remand this case to the district court and instruct the district court to reevaluate the bar order under the guidance provided in this opinion.”
In Carhartt's fabric-defect suit, he reversed summary judgment so a jury could decide whether notice of the breach came within a reasonable time after discovery.
“It is possible that Carhartt should have conducted the fire-resistance tests earlier. But reasonable minds could differ on that conclusion—so it is a question for a jury.”
Cautions
In Carpenter's excessive-force suit, he reversed denial of qualified immunity because the arrestee admitted resisting and the officers used a taser and knee strike to gain compliance.
“Nor, finally, will we read a de minimis resistance exception into the Fourth Amendment... When a person resists arrest -- say, by swinging his arms in the officer's direction, balling up, and refusing to comply with verbal commands -- the officers can use the amount of force necessary to ensure submission.”
In Ohio public employees' class-action appeal, he held that the plaintiff's invited dismissal did not create appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory class-certification ruling.
“Thus, where a plaintiff manufactures a dismissal in a manner that implicates these concerns, there is no final judgment, and thus there is no appellate jurisdiction.”
In Stanley's FMLA suit, he affirmed judicial estoppel because Stanley disclosed his claim in bankruptcy only after his opponent identified the omission.
“This late, perfunctory disclosure does not demonstrate an absence of bad faith.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the district court's judgment, which is hereby AFFIRMED.”
“For all of these reasons, we AFFIRM the BIA's decisions and DENY the petitions for review.”
“Accordingly, the district court's denial of the Trump defendants' motion to dismiss this claim is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for entry of an order dismissing the Count III claim against the Trump defendants.”
“the denial of Malease's Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for an entry of an order of DISMISSAL, without prejudice, for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“We hold that the district court erred in its assessment of the record, and conclude that plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the Fiscal Court had an impermissible purpose or that the Foundations Display endorses religion.”
“we find that CCC's denial of disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, this case is remanded to the district court for the entry of an order requiring CCC to provide a full and fair review of Smith's disability claim.”
“We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the decision of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“We therefore REVERSE the decision of the district court, and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants.”
“Accordingly, upon de novo review, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.”
“For the reasons that follow, we reverse the denial of plaintiff's motion to remand and vacate the district court's judgment on the pleadings.”
“The district court was clearly acting within its discretion when it denied the motion for reconsideration, so we affirm its order denying reconsideration. But the bar order itself raises several interesting questions of first impression in this Circuit ... We therefore remand this case to the district court and instruct the district court to reevaluate the bar order under the guidance provided in this opinion.”
Draft for Judge McKeague with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McKeague, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McKeague's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace