Candace Rae Jackson-Akiwumi
How Judge Jackson-Akiwumi rules, drawn from 54 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jackson-Akiwumi
Candace Rae Jackson-Akiwumi is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Jackson-Akiwumi received a commission on July 1, 2021.
Judge Jackson-Akiwumi's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Jackson-Akiwumi'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 Jackson-Akiwumi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dyson Technology Ltd. v. David 7 Store, Jackson-Akiwumi held that Dyson’s evidence of the infringers’ sales sufficed under the Lanham Act because the defendants bore the burden of proving costs or deductions.
“A trademark plaintiff need not disentangle revenue and profits.”
In Mary Wilson’s suit, she affirmed dismissal but modified the judgment to make it with prejudice because the claim failed on the merits.
“The district court was correct to dismiss the case, but Wilson’s lawsuit fails on the merits, not necessarily for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we affirm the judgment but modify it to indicate that the dismissal is with prejudice.”
Procedural preferences
In Word Seed Church’s case, she affirmed denial of Rule 60(b) relief because the movants had shown no extraordinary circumstances.
“Because Word Seed failed to show any extraordinary circumstances in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their Rule 60(b) motion.”
In United States v. Norville, she reviewed the video and agreed that the defendant had not stopped at the intersection.
“Having reviewed the video ourselves, we agree with the district court that Norville did not stop at the intersection.”
In United States v. Muhammad, she declined to correct any assumed plain error under the fourth prong on the facts of that case.
“Here, we need not address all of Muhammad’s arguments about plain error because, even if the first three prongs are met, on the facts of this case we will not exercise our ‘broad discretion’ under the fourth prong to correct any error.”
In her Watkins dissent, she would have required an evidentiary hearing to test the prosecutor’s later Batson explanation rather than accepting a credibility finding made only from briefs. This is her separate view, not the panel’s holding.
“On these facts, the district court needed to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve defendants’ Batson claim.”
In Lewis, Jackson-Akiwumi upheld an ALJ’s combined assessment of mental-health symptoms even though the ALJ did not separately list obsessive-compulsive disorder as a severe impairment. The panel found the step-two omission harmless because the ALJ considered the associated limitations later in the disability analysis.
“Regardless, the ALJ specifically in- cluded anxiety and obsessive disorders in his analysis of whether any of Lewis’s impairments met the criteria for disa- bility. Further, even if the ALJ erred in not including OCD as an impairment, the error is not reversible.”
In Thorpe, Jackson-Akiwumi held that the disability claimant forfeited his challenge to vocational-expert testimony by failing to object at the administrative hearing. She also found the expert’s testimony sufficiently reliable on the record.
“And regardless, claimants have an obligation to object to an expert’s testimony during the hearing, otherwise that objection is forfeited.”
Cautions
In Holmes v. Neal, Jackson-Akiwumi separately concurred in the judgment, expressing concern about the petitioner’s death sentence while concluding that the state court’s distinction survived the rational-basis test.
“Because this egregious result is constitutionally permissible, I am compelled to concur in the judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because the district court reasonably concluded that the video rendered an evidentiary hearing unnecessary, we affirm. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing. AFFIRMED”
“Because Word Seed failed to show any extraordinary circumstances in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their Rule 60(b) motion. AFFIRMED”
“Diaz Mejia failed to meaningfully challenge the two dispositive issues in his case before the BIA or this court -- the findings of no past persecution and ability to relocate upon return to Mexico. As a result, we are compelled to DENY the petition for review.”
“The district court was correct to dismiss the case, but Wilson's lawsuit fails on the merits, not necessarily for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we affirm the judgment but modify it to indicate that the dismissal is with prejudice. ... We AFFIRM the judgment as amended.”
“Because the district court erred in its interpretation of the relevant trademark infringement law and because Dyson met its burden, we reverse and remand. ... We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“For the reasons above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and decline to order a limited remand. Because everyone involved agrees that Muhammad paid $433.32 towards his restitution, we are confident he has or will receive credit for that amount.”
“Accordingly, we remand for resentencing in light of the amended Guidelines. Because this resolves the appeal, we do not consider whether Easterling's sentence is substantively reasonable.”
“Segid's failure to properly present his arguments before us constitutes waiver. ... Because of Segid's waiver, we have no occasion to consider any potentially meritorious arguments about his eligibility for naturalization. AFFIRMED.”
“Therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing the bankruptcy appeal, and we do not reach the merits of Helmstetter’s claim or Trustee Herzog’s arguments that the matter is moot.”
“because Casas cannot show that she suffered any prejudice as a result of DHS's procedural errors, and because the IJ's reasonable-fear finding is supported by substantial evidence, we must deny her petition.”
Draft for Judge Jackson-Akiwumi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jackson-Akiwumi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jackson-Akiwumi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace