Joan Louise Larsen
How Judge Larsen rules, drawn from 101 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Larsen
Joan Louise Larsen is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Larsen received a commission on November 2, 2017.
Judge Larsen's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Larsen'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 Larsen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Ansari's civil-rights case following vacated convictions, she affirmed a $10 million verdict against a detective for withholding material exculpatory evidence.
“A jury found for Ansari and awarded him $10 million in damages. Jimenez now appeals. We AFFIRM.”
In Ansari's suit against the investigating detective, she held that the Heck bar did not apply because the underlying conviction had been vacated.
“The Heck bar does not apply here.”
In Guy's ERISA life-insurance dispute, she held that either Tennessee's slayer statute or federal common law barred the beneficiary convicted of murdering the insured from collecting proceeds.
“The district court disagreed, concluding either that ERISA does not preempt Tennessee's slayer statute or that the federal common law prevents Guy from benefitting from his murders. Guy now appeals. We AFFIRM.”
In Guzman-Torralva's immigration appeal, she denied reopening because his explanation for not filing a bar complaint against former counsel did not satisfy Lozada.
“Because we think Lozada requires more than a simple statement that the alien is ‘not interested in filing a formal complaint,’ we DENY the petition for review.”
Procedural preferences
In Bailey's drug-conspiracy appeal, she rejected challenges to the jury instructions, evidence, and proof of guilt and affirmed the convictions.
“He appealed, challenging the jury instructions, the admission of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conspiracy charges. We AFFIRM.”
In Carter’s sentencing appeal, Larsen held that counsel’s assurance that the district court had addressed all nonfrivolous arguments waived the challenge or invited the alleged error; she declined to review it because no manifest injustice would result.
“He cannot now protest that the trial court had not, in fact, addressed them.”
In Hale’s supervised-release appeal, Larsen vacated the denial of early termination and remanded because the district court applied an overly demanding threshold for relief.
“We VACATE and REMAND in accordance with this decision.”
Cautions
In Johnson, Larsen held that the defendant forfeited a proposed rebuttable-presumption theory by failing to raise it in the district court.
“Johnson did not argue for a rebuttable presumption in the district court, so this argument is forfeited.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The district court granted summary judgment to Geelhood. Chancellor now appeals. We AFFIRM.”
“He appealed, challenging the jury instructions, the admission of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conspiracy charges. We AFFIRM.”
“A jury found for Ansari and awarded him $10 million in damages. Jimenez now appeals. We AFFIRM.”
“On appeal, Parrish challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. We AFFIRM.”
“Bailey now argues that her sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We disagree and AFFIRM the district court's sentence.”
“We, therefore, DISMISS Miami-Luken’s petition for review of the DEA’s order for lack of jurisdiction.”
“The district court granted summary judgment to FAMC on its breach of contract claims against UNB. We now AFFIRM that judgment.”
“Enchant appealed and, for the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.”
“Because Rehaif does not support Hobbs's challenges, we AFFIRM.”
“The district court rejected both claims, and we AFFIRM.”
“We agree and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”
Draft for Judge Larsen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Larsen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Larsen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace