John Marshall Rogers

How Judge Rogers rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
George W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
2002-11-26
Education
Stanford University (B.A., 1970); University of Michigan Law School (J.D., 1974)
Signed orders read
36

How Judge Rogers decides

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

What persuades

In immigration statutory-construction cases, Rogers reads relief-restricting provisions by their plain text even when it favors the noncitizen: the aggravated-felony hardship-waiver bar applies only to aliens admitted AS immigrants, not those who adjusted status later.

“We grant the petition for review and remand this matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Treats administrative-exhaustion defenses as forfeitable, non-jurisdictional procedural objections that a defendant loses by failing to raise them in the district court: a defense doesn't get a second chance on appeal just because it would have worked below.

“given that the question of administrative exhaustion is nonjurisdictional, U.S. Bank forfeited the argument that Adamov did not exhaust his retaliation claim by failing to raise it to the district court”

In a bankruptcy fraudulent-transfer case, ties a bank's good-faith defense to what its own employees actually knew and shared internally: once one employee at the bank discovers a critical fraud clue, the bank's good faith ends even if the officers managing the account never personally learned of it.

“Huntington's investigator discovered a critical clue to Cyberco's fraud on April 30, 2004”

A warrantless search of a closed satchel violated the Fourth Amendment, so the suppression order stood against the government’s interlocutory appeal.

“We affirm the order of the district court, as the search of the satchel violated McClendon's Fourth Amendment rights.”

NEPA review for a fill permit could reasonably be limited to effects proximately caused by the specific activities the permit authorized rather than the entire mining operation.

“The Corps reasonably limited its scope of review to the effects proximately caused by the specific activities that were authorized by the permit.”

Failure to investigate and present mitigation did not justify presumed Strickland prejudice where the state court reasonably found no prejudice after weighing both mitigating and responsive aggravating evidence.

“In light of the mitigating evidence and the aggravating evidence that would have been admitted in response, it was reasonable for the state court to conclude that Sherrod had not demonstrated prejudice.”

Procedural preferences

Strictly enforces the 30-day window to seek review of a final BIA order, even where a later, narrower remand order might appear to reopen the case: a petitioner who lets the original final order's window lapse cannot revive review through a later, unrelated proceeding.

“The petition for review is accordingly dismissed.”

On interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals, treats the district court's factual findings as binding rather than revisiting the record: the panel's review is confined to the legal question of immunity, not a chance to re-litigate disputed facts.

“Because this is an interlocutory appeal, we are bound by the district court's finding that a genuine dispute of material fact existed”

A sentencing error was harmless where the court announced identical mandatory-guidelines and discretionary alternatives and made clear it would impose the same term either way.

“Any error in Christopher's sentencing was harmless, because the district court adequately conveyed that it would impose the same sentence in the absence of mandatory sentencing enhancements.”

An agency enforcement order should be narrowed when its wording reaches beyond the factual findings and reasoning that support the remedy.

“Because the FLRA’s order can be read more broadly than the reasoning of its decision would support, it is appropriate to modify the order”

Cautions

Adverse-credibility findings in asylum cases will be upheld where the immigration judge gave the applicant notice of similarities to other applicants' claims and a chance to explain them before ruling: a warning that copied or templated persecution narratives invite scrutiny even when substantively plausible.

“The petition for review is accordingly denied.”

Signed rulings

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

ACLU of Tennessee v. Bredesen
04-5306 · 2006-03-17
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order enjoining enforcement of the Act is REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council v. Snyder
12-1246/2548 · 2013-09-06
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“In case No. 12-1246, the appeal is dismissed as moot. In case No. 12-2548, the district court's judgment is reversed and the injunction is vacated.”

Harness v. Taft
19-5484 · 2020-01-23
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“we affirm the judgment of the district court denying plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of their complaints and dismiss plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's sanction against their counsel.”

Candido Romo v. Jeff Largen
unavailable in retrieved text; citation 723 F.3d 670 · 2013-07-23
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“The district court's denial of qualified immunity with respect to Romo's federal malicious-prosecution claim is reversed. The judgment of the district court is otherwise affirmed.”

Serge Adamov v. U.S. Bank National Association
unavailable in retrieved text; citation 726 F.3d 851 · 2013-08-13
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“The district court properly granted summary judgment on Adamov's discrimination claim, and we affirm that decision. ... we reverse the dismissal of the retaliation claim and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Roderick Davie v. Betty Mitchell, Warden
unavailable in retrieved text; citation 547 F.3d 297 · 2008-11-12
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

United States v. Sexton
unavailable in retrieved text; citation 512 F.3d 326 · 2008-01-11
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Because all of these arguments are without merit, we affirm the sentences imposed by the district court.”

Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
13-6153 · 2014-03-07
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.”

Robert Stanovsek v. Eric Holder, Jr.
13-3641 · 2014-09-24
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“We grant the petition for review and remand this matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Ashad R.A. Muhammad Ali v. Tennessee Board of Pardon and Paroles
unavailable in retrieved text; citation 431 F.3d 896 · 2005-12-13
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“The judgment of the district court dismissing the habeas corpus petition as untimely is REVERSED.”

Arturo Velasco-Tijero v. Loretta E. Lynch
14-3803 · 2015-08-06
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“The petition is denied.”

Yasser Hih v. Loretta Lynch
15-3475 · 2016-02-09
Petition for review (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“The petition for review is accordingly dismissed.”

Draft for Judge Rogers with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rogers, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Rogers's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace