John Baylor Nalbandian
How Judge Nalbandian decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Resolves cases on the narrowest available ground -- frequently Article III standing -- before reaching constitutional merits. In Friends of George's he vacated a facial-unconstitutionality judgment without deciding the First Amendment question because the plaintiff had not established standing.
“FOG did not meet its burden to show standing, so we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to DISMISS.”
Textualist: reads statutory terms in their full statutory context rather than in the abstract. In Salazar he confined the VPPA's 'consumer'/'subscriber' to those who subscribe to audio-visual goods or services, so a generic newsletter subscription did not trigger the Act.
“since he did not subscribe to "audio visual materials," the district court held that he was not a "consumer" and dismissed the complaint. We agree and so AFFIRM.”
Procedural preferences
Even when affirming the bottom line he will correct the analytical path -- e.g. recognizing a plaintiff's standing on a Fourth Amendment claim before rejecting it on the merits (Herschfus), and reviving some claims while affirming dismissal of others (Heyward). Disposition is issue-by-issue, not all-or-nothing.
“We find that Herschfus does have standing to bring his Fourth Amendment claim, but that it doesn't succeed on the merits. His Equal Protection claim also fails. So we affirm.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“FOG did not meet its burden to show standing, so we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to DISMISS.”
“But since he did not subscribe to "audio visual materials," the district court held that he was not a "consumer" and dismissed the complaint. We agree and so AFFIRM.”
“The district court dismissed Heyward's claims. We affirm in part and reverse in part.”
“We find that Herschfus does have standing to bring his Fourth Amendment claim, but that it doesn't succeed on the merits. His Equal Protection claim also fails. So we affirm.”