Thomas Lee Kirsch II
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“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.”
“Thus, 3M's attempt to remove the case under the federal officer removal statute fails under the fourth element. AFFIRMED”
“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.”
“Because Freeman failed to state an FCRA claim and lacks standing to bring an FDCPA claim, we affirm.”
“These arguments lack merit, too, so we affirm.”
“Because the Fund's decision was not downright unreasonable, we agree with the district court and affirm.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Put Judge Kirsch's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Kirsch actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Kirsch's own signed orders and cites them.