Thomas Lee Kirsch II

How Judge Kirsch rules, drawn from 66 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Donald Trump (Republican)
Commissioned
2020-12-17
Education
Indiana University, Bloomington (B.A., economics & political science, with highest distinction, 1996); Harvard Law School (J.D., 1999)
Signed orders read
66

How Judge Kirsch decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

A consumer complaint failed where it did not satisfy the statutory pleading requirements for one claim and did not allege a concrete injury supporting standing for the other.

“Because Freeman failed to state an FCRA claim and lacks standing to bring an FDCPA claim, we affirm.”

A sentencing court could rely on ordinary reasoning about general deterrence without first presenting empirical proof of a sentence's deterrent effect.

“District judges need not marshal empirical data on deterrent effects before considering whether a sentence adequately deters criminal conduct.”

Detailed federal statutory text controlled over an invitation to rebalance the competing interests that Congress had addressed.

“Balancing those competing interests is Congress’s job”

Procedural preferences

Federal habeas review remained confined to the state-court record even when later evidence appeared to undermine the identification supporting the conviction.

“Though the photos suggest Woodson is not the man in the video, we may not consider them on habeas review and, accordingly, deny his petition.”

Admissions about the victims' incapacitating circumstances supported treating them as especially vulnerable for sentencing.

“Issa admitted that Weston’s mother was suffering from an incapacitating illness and that Grace Castillo had recently lost her husband, making both victims especially vulnerable to Issa’s crimes.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Brian Hope v. Commissioner of Indiana Department of Correction
22-2150 · 2023-04-27
Appeal (appellant (defendants -- Commissioner, Indiana DOC)) Granted

“On remand, the district court concluded that requiring the registration of pre-SORA sex offenders who have a registration obligation in another jurisdiction is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest and granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. We disagree and now reverse.”

People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Kwame Raoul v. 3M Company
23-3031 · 2024-08-07
Appeal (appellant (defendant 3M Company)) Denied

“Thus, 3M's attempt to remove the case under the federal officer removal statute fails under the fourth element. AFFIRMED”

LuzMaria Arroyo v. Volvo Group North America, LLC
23-1165 · 2024-02-27
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff LuzMaria Arroyo)) Denied

“Because Arroyo is not a qualified individual under the ADA, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the jury verdict of the first trial resulted from passion and prejudice, we affirm.”

Demona Freeman v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
23-2512 · 2024-07-12
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Demona Freeman)) Denied

“Because Freeman failed to state an FCRA claim and lacks standing to bring an FDCPA claim, we affirm.”

United States v. Luis Arroyo
22-2008 · 2023-07-28
Appeal (appellant (defendant Luis Arroyo)) Denied

“These arguments lack merit, too, so we affirm.”

Jeffery Lane v. Structural Iron Workers Local No. 1 Pension Trust Fund
22-1149 · 2023-07-17
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Jeffery Lane)) Denied

“Because the Fund's decision was not downright unreasonable, we agree with the district court and affirm.”

Next Millennium Telecom Co. v. American Signal Corporation
23-2446 · 2024-08-12
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Next Millennium Telecom Co.)) Denied

“Given ‘the procedural history of the case and the situation at the time of the dismissal,’ the court did not abuse its discretion and we affirm: there is an adequate record of Nextel's dilatory and insubordinate conduct such that we cannot conclude that ‘no reasonable person could concur’ with the court's dismissal.”

United States v. Lynard Joiner
20-2361 · 2021-02-23
Appeal (appellant (defendant Lynard Joiner)) Denied

“Without any factual basis tying these broader societal concerns to Joiner's individual situation, the district court was not required to address the argument. Thus, because the district court did not procedurally err, we affirm.”

United States v. Sultan Issa
20-2949 · 2021-12-27
Appeal (appellant (defendant Sultan Issa)) Denied

“Issa has not shown the district court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing. ... Issa has waived any challenge to the district court's application of the enhancement. AFFIRMED”

Mark Anderson v. Deanna Brookhart
20-3330 · 2021-12-02
Petition for review (petitioner-appellant (state prisoner Mark Anderson)) Denied

“Because the Illinois Appellate Court reasonably applied Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), in upholding Anderson's conviction, we affirm the denial of habeas relief.”

United States v. Raul Ambriz-Villa, Jr.
21-1362 · 2022-03-14
Appeal (appellant (defendant Raul Ambriz-Villa, Jr.)) Denied

“The stop was not unlawful, and Ambriz-Villa voluntarily consented to the search, which was not tainted by the stop. ... Finding no error, we affirm.”

United States v. David Newton
21-2514 · 2022-06-15
Appeal (appellant (defendant David Newton)) Denied

“not once has he explained to us how he would satisfy the Broadfield-Ugbah safety valve, so we affirm the district court's finding that Newton did not present an extraordinary and compelling reason for early release.”

Draft for Judge Kirsch with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kirsch, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Kirsch's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace