Kevin Gafford Ritz
How Judge Ritz rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ritz
Kevin Gafford Ritz is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Ritz received a commission on September 19, 2024.
Judge Ritz's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Ritz'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 Ritz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Lyngaas v. United Concordia Co., Ritz held that a sender could face TCPA liability for fax advertisements even if it did not itself sell the advertised product.
“Advertisements attempt to 'promote[] the sale' of goods or services. ... It is a small logical step to conclude that a sender may be liable for advertising a product it does not sell.”
In Pineda-Guerra v. Bondi, Ritz held that the BIA abused its discretion by rejecting a timely filed brief because counsel listed a different valid address than on her notice of appearance, a match the BIA’s rules did not require.
“No such requirement appears in the BIA's rules or procedures. ... Where the BIA creates a requirement and failure to adhere to that requirement could result in rejection or dismissal of a filing, the BIA makes this clear.”
In United States v. Maund, Ritz held that the district court’s mistaken delivery of exhibits to the jury was subject to harmless-error review rather than automatic reversal as structural error.
“Again, very few errors meet Weaver's too-hard-to-measure threshold for structural error. ... Every criminal trial is, of course, at least to some degree unique.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because the BIA abused its discretion, we grant the petition for review.”
“We dismiss Zhou's petition for review.”
“For those reasons, we affirm Freed's entitlement to fees from Gratiot County and Michigan and vacate and remand for recalculation of the fee award amount.”
“For these reasons, we hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Taylor and affirm the district court's judgment.”
“For the above reasons, we reverse the district court's grant of a new trial and remand for further proceedings.”
“For these reasons, we affirm the district court's judgment.”
“Although procedural errors and anomalies occurred here, none warrant vacatur of Harrell's forfeiture sentence. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.”
“We reverse as to Ashly's excessive-force claim and affirm as to the remaining claims.”
“We therefore reverse the district court’s order dismissing Millis’s appeal under Rule 4. Because the government was not served with Millis’s habeas petition and did not have the opportunity to respond or add to the record, we remand for further proceedings.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order abstaining from the injunctive-relief issue under Younger”
“and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Holly’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal of her Monell claim against the City.”
Draft for Judge Ritz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ritz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ritz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace