David William McKeague
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 ERISA cases, treats a benefits-recovery remedy as adequate on its own and resists layering an additional equitable remedy for the same wrongful denial -- a 'make whole is enough' anti-duplication principle. Useful to cite defensively against a disgorgement/surcharge claim once the claimant has already recovered benefits, fees, and interest.
“Rochow is made whole under Sec. 502(a)(1)(B) through recovery of his disability benefits and attorney's fees, and potential recovery of prejudgment interest... Allowing Rochow to recover disgorged profits under Sec. 502(a)(3), in addition to his recovery under Sec. 502(a)(1)(B) ... would -- absent a showing that the Sec. 502(a)(1)(B) remedy is inadequate -- result in an impermissible duplicative recovery, contrary to clear Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent.”
Procedural preferences
Repeatedly reframes an appeal around whether the LOWER court applied the correct standard of review, rather than re-deciding the underlying merits question itself -- seen across the two Price v. Ind. Laborer's Pension Fund appeals, McGowan v. Burt, and McKinney v. Hoffner. When arguing to him, lead with the standard-of-review question.
“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.”
Declines to resolve genuinely novel legal questions on a record or briefing he views as underdeveloped, preferring a remand with guidance over a first-impression ruling issued without adequate adversarial testing -- seen in the Greektown Casino bankruptcy bar-order appeal.
“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.”
Cautions
In Fourth Amendment excessive-force cases, evaluates officer conduct strictly on the facts known in the moment (no 20/20 hindsight) and expressly refuses to craft new bright-line carve-outs (e.g., a 'de minimis resistance' exception) that would complicate that in-the-moment analysis -- a consistently defense-favorable framework for law enforcement in qualified-immunity appeals.
“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.”
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.”
“there has been no showing that the remaining avenues of communication are inadequate. 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.”
Put Judge McKeague's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge McKeague actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge McKeague's own signed orders and cites them.