Frank H. Easterbrook
How Judge Easterbrook rules, drawn from 57 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Easterbrook
Frank Hoover Easterbrook is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Easterbrook received a commission on April 4, 1985.
Judge Easterbrook's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Easterbrook'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 Easterbrook decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the AbbVie antitrust appeal, Easterbrook rejected the argument that the number of Humira patents alone supported a monopolization claim; the patent laws set no cap on how many patents a person may hold.
“But what’s wrong with having lots of patents? If AbbVie made 132 inventions, why can’t it hold 132 patents?”
Concrete-injury rigor at summary judgment: a bare statutory violation is not standing, and a plaintiff who is asked to produce evidence of a real loss and declines cannot proceed. 'Put up or shut up' time.
“Summary judgment is the 'put up or shut up' time in litigation. ... Interruption of self-employment could cause a loss, but whether it did cause a loss must be established by evidence. Plaintiffs, who declined an opportunity to produce such evidence, cannot carry on with this litigation.”
Procedural preferences
Tight textual/structural statutory reading: what Congress omitted from a list must be respected, and what it included must be honored: the structure of the statute, not a free-floating purpose, governs.
“We held in Wilcher, and stress again today, that the omissions from the list in section 3583(c) must be respected -- and the inclusions also must be honored.”
In Soni’s immigration case, he held that Section 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) barred review and that the APA did not supply an alternative route around that bar.
“Section 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) does just that, so by its own terms the APA drops out. No review means no review; the statute does not need to list all of the many potential legal theories that are not reviewable.”
Cautions
Substance over form on the entitlements actually fixed by a judgment: a later constitutional/statutory cap that merely trims a number already present in the original judgment does not reset rights (here, the postjudgment-interest start date). Distinguish a true recalculation-by-different-method.
“Equity looks beyond these words of description to see what was in fact ordered to be done. ... This court has never suggested that application of a common law, statutory, or constitutional limit, while leaving in place a sum that was present in the original judgment, defers the start date for postjudgment interest.”
An antitrust plaintiff who is a stranger to patent litigation cannot adjudicate 'by proxy' what should have been fought out in those patent cases; complaints about successful petitioning run into Noerr-Pennington, and only issued patents (not the act of applying) impose costs on rivals.
“a separate antitrust suit by strangers to the patent litigation does not justify an effort to adjudicate by proxy what might have happened in the patent litigation, but didn't. ... Patent applications, successful or not, do not impose costs on rivals; only issued patents do so.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Summary judgment is the 'put up or shut up' time in litigation. ... Interruption of self-employment could cause a loss, but whether it did cause a loss must be established by evidence. Plaintiffs, who declined an opportunity to produce such evidence, cannot carry on with this litigation. ... AFFIRMED”
“The district court's decision is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to award postjudgment interest on the $140 million punitive award starting October 3, 2017.”
“Section 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) does just that, so by its own terms the APA drops out. No review means no review; the statute does not need to list all of the many potential legal theories that are not reviewable. ... AFFIRMED”
“We held in Wilcher, and stress again today, that the omissions from the list in section 3583(c) must be respected -- and the inclusions also must be honored. ... AFFIRMED”
“The district court therefore was not required to decide the inverse-condemnation claim. AFFIRMED”
“We have considered other contentions but need not discuss them further. AFFIRMED”
“All we hold today is that this complaint states a claim for relief that survives a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). REVERSED AND REMANDED”
“Other arguments have been considered but do not require discussion. AFFIRMED”
“We hold that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in seding the amount of taxable costs. AFFIRMED”
Draft for Judge Easterbrook with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Easterbrook, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Easterbrook's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace