John Baylor Nalbandian
How Judge Nalbandian rules, drawn from 66 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Nalbandian
John Baylor Nalbandian is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Nalbandian received a commission on May 17, 2018.
Judge Nalbandian's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Nalbandian'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 Nalbandian decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Friends of George’s v. Mulroy, he reversed a First Amendment judgment on standing grounds without reaching the constitutional merits.
“FOG did not meet its burden to show standing, so we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to DISMISS.”
In Salazar, Nalbandian read the statutory terms “consumer” and “subscriber” in context and held that a generic newsletter subscription did not trigger the Video Privacy Protection 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.”
In his Venema dissent, Nalbandian would have granted the prison warden qualified immunity because the complaint offered no supporting facts for its assertion that she knew officers gave plastic bags to inmates at risk of suicide.
“Even on a motion to dismiss, merely saying something doesn’t make it so.”
In a dispute over a marijuana supply agreement, Nalbandian held that federal courts could not enforce the contract despite its state-law setting, because the agreement called for conduct prohibited by federal law.
“Federal courts can’t enforce contract claims founded on an agreement to purchase marijuana illegally.”
Procedural preferences
In Herschfus v. City of Oak Park, he found standing on the Fourth Amendment claim but rejected that claim on the merits and affirmed judgment for the city.
“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.”
In Bard v. Brown County, he wrote the panel’s forfeiture holding, finding that a stray half-sentence did not preserve separate claims for appeal.
“Developed argument requires more than a twenty-two-word half-sentence that fails to mention the claim by name, cite the legal standard, or apply that standard to the facts of the case.”
Cautions
In Shanaberg, Nalbandian concurred in the judgment because the law did not clearly establish when a suspect’s verbal hostility could justify a taser, although he thought this use of the taser unjustified.
“But I would grant qualified immunity for a different reason: it is not clearly established, in the context of this case, what level of verbal noncompliance, or ‘verbal belligerence,’ justifies a taser’s use.”
In United States v. Russell, he affirmed denial of suppression because the passenger lacked a privacy interest in the searched car.
“Allowing Russell to benefit from the exclusionary rule when none of his rights were violated would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding.”
In his Reichert v. Kellogg Co. dissent, Nalbandian argued that the ERISA question should be resolved from Congress's enacted words rather than a broader policy rationale.
“We judges, on the other hand, should focus our energies only on interpreting Congress’s words as written.”
In Trustees Main, Nalbandian upheld the landlord’s mitigation choice to reject proposed replacement tenants where they posed a similar default risk.
“Trustees Main didn’t want another tenant that presented an undue risk of default for the same reason as the outgoing tenant”
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.”
“On appeal, Shepherd argues that he was indigent at sentencing, making him ineligible for the JVTA assessment. We disagree and AFFIRM.”
“Eric Scott Ruska appeals his sentence of life imprisonment to the extent that the district court imposed it under the federal three strikes statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c). For the following reasons, we affirm.”
“Thus, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment that Olagues cannot proceed pro se and REMAND to the district court to give Olagues the opportunity to retain counsel.”
“He contends that the district court's finding was erroneous. We affirm.”
“Because of Monea's failure to demonstrate prejudice, we affirm the decision denying habeas relief on this issue.”
“For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the district court's decision to reinstate Richardson's original sentence.”
“We dismiss the appeal without addressing the merits.”
“We AFFIRM the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Nissan.”
Draft for Judge Nalbandian with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nalbandian, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nalbandian's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace