Whitney Downs Hermandorfer
How Judge Hermandorfer rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hermandorfer
Whitney Downs Hermandorfer is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Hermandorfer received a commission on July 17, 2025.
Judge Hermandorfer's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hermandorfer'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 Hermandorfer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jackson's sentencing appeal, Hermandorfer held that clear-error review governed a perjury-based obstruction enhancement because the perjury determination was fact-bound, and affirmed the enhancement.
“As we see it, the clear-error standard likewise governs review of perjury-based obstruction enhancements. Our conclusion reflects the enhancement's settled application to perjury, the fact-bound nature of the perjury determination, and our approach in prior cases.”
In T.E.'s ERISA benefits appeal, Hermandorfer concluded that Anthem's failure to address treating clinicians' opinions, selective use of medical records, and inadequate explanation made its denial arbitrary and capricious.
“Anthem (1) ignored the opinions of C.E.'s treating clinicians; (2) selectively reviewed the record by cherry-picking portions of C.E.'s medical records that supported its decision while ignoring adverse evidence in those same records; and (3) provided a deficient explanation for denying additional coverage.”
In the Gradys' retaliatory-arrest appeal, Hermandorfer concluded that their proposed comparators did not show officers declining to arrest people engaged in the same conduct that led to the Gradys' arrests.
“To satisfy Nieves with comparator evidence, the Gradys needed to show that officers failed to arrest individuals 'not engaged in the same sort of protected speech' as the Gradys themselves ... examining officers' exercise of discretion in the way Nieves instructs requires assessing whether others were committing the same kind of conduct that led to the claimant's arrest.”
Procedural preferences
In T.E., Hermandorfer remanded the ERISA benefits claim to Anthem for a full and fair review because the administrator’s decision process was flawed and the record did not clearly establish entitlement to benefits.
“We therefore vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Anthem on the ERISA claim and remand with instructions that the district court remand to Anthem for a full and fair review of the requested coverage.”
In Herrera, Hermandorfer denied review of the Board’s numerical-bar decision because the petitioner had not specifically challenged that ground before the Board and forfeited a challenge to its waiver analysis on appeal.
“We therefore deny Herrera’s petition for review of the Board’s number-bar decision on exhaustion grounds without proceeding to the merits of her notice-based arguments.”
Cautions
In Baskerville's gang-racketeering appeal, Hermandorfer rejected the argument that his absence from the scene insulated him from responsibility where evidence showed he directed subordinates through communications.
“Gang bosses like Baskerville cannot 'buffer[] themselves' from criminal responsibility by routing their commands through others at 'lower tiers.'”
In Roper's sentencing appeal, Hermandorfer rejected his proposed categorical limit on the district court's consideration of his mental-health history because the asserted policy did not supply a limit in the sentencing statutes.
“Nor does Roper's view of 'sound policy' license us to override the statutes that Congress enacted with atextual limits on district courts' sentencing discretion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We deny the petition in part and dismiss the petition in part.”
“We affirm all of the defendants' convictions.”
“But consistent with the Government's confession of sentencing error, we vacate Smith's sentence and remand for resentencing.”
“We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand the case with instructions that the district court remand to Anthem.”
“We therefore reverse the district court's denial of summary judgment to officers Cratsenburg and Pearson on the First Amendment retaliation claim and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hermandorfer concurred in an ERISA and labor-preemption appeal while narrowing the reach of the majority's jurisdictional reasoning. Grounding quote: 'I do not, however, read the Court’s opinion to foreclose jurisdiction over distinct ERISA claims that do not turn on the Funds’ alleged NLRA obligations. With those additional observations, I concur.'
Hermandorfer dissented from denial of rehearing en banc on Article III standing to challenge race-based programs. Grounding quote: 'I would therefore grant the petition for rehearing en banc and respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision not to do so.'
“For the reasons given, we affirm the convictions of Fordham, Murff, and Reid. We vacate Fordham’s sentence and remand for Fordham’s resentencing.”
“We reverse the district court’s release order.”
“Because they are, we reverse the district court’s contrary dismissal order and remand for further proceedings.”
Draft for Judge Hermandorfer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hermandorfer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hermandorfer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace