Whitney Downs Hermandorfer

Resolves unsettled standard-of-review questions by asking whether the underlying determination is fact-bound and credibility-driven (warranting deferential clear-error review) rather than a pure legal question -- she traced this approach directly to the Supreme Court's mixed-question framework in U.S. Bank v. Village at Lakeridge.

“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 ERISA benefits-denial appeals, treats a plan administrator's silent or selective handling of treating-clinician opinions and unexplained reversal from a prior coverage approval as hallmarks of arbitrary-and-capricious decisionmaking, even without an outright misstatement of the record.

“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 First Amendment retaliatory-arrest cases under Nieves v. Bartlett, requires that comparator evidence involve people who engaged in the SAME conduct that created probable cause to arrest the plaintiff -- mere physical proximity or bystander status is not enough.

“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.”