Jeffrey Stuart Sutton

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit circuit Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 3 signed orders read

How Judge Sutton decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Textualist statutory interpretation anchored in the precise words Congress chose: in the PLRA the strike provision counts 'action[s] or appeal[s],' not claims, so a partial or jurisdictional dismissal is not a strike. Parse the operative noun/verb, not the statute's general purpose.

“The Act, notably, refers to "action[s] or appeal[s]," not claims, when it mentions what counts as a strike. ... This language suggests that all claims in a complaint, not just some of them, must be dismissed on grounds listed in the Act for the dismissal to count as a strike.”

Reads a statute's mens-rea adverb strictly and applies it identically in civil and criminal settings: under the CFAA/SCA 'intentionally' modifies 'exceeds,' so a computer insider must KNOW his access is forbidden -- an improper motive (per Van Buren) does not make authorized access a violation.

“An insider does not intentionally do more than is justified if he has no reason to know that his conduct is off-limits.”

Procedural preferences

On constitutional challenges he defaults to rational-basis review absent a basis for heightened scrutiny and defers to legislative line-drawing -- a State's policy choice that survives rational basis will be upheld even on contested social questions.

“In the absence of any explanation for heightened review of Tennessee's birth-certificate amendment policy, we must uphold the policy if a rational basis supports it.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Kayla Gore v. William Lee
23-5669 · 2024-07-12
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Tennessee chose to record births based solely on biological sex. That choice of government policy, indeed that choice of government speech, ... does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Conlan Abu v. Stanley Dickson
23-1573 · 2024-07-08
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because the Conlan company failed to show that Massey acted without authorization or intentionally exceeded his authorization, it cannot recover under either Act. We affirm.”

Horace Crump v. Jane Blue
24-1126 · 2024-11-15
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“We vacate the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.”