Andrew David Hurwitz
How Judge Hurwitz rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hurwitz
Andrew David Hurwitz is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Hurwitz received a commission on June 27, 2012. Judge Hurwitz assumed senior status on October 3, 2022.
Judge Hurwitz's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hurwitz'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 Hurwitz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Individual-capacity claims against tribal officials can proceed when the requested recovery runs against the officials rather than the tribe. The practical target of the remedy, not merely the officials’ duties, controlled the immunity analysis.
“In sum, the tribal defendants have not shown that the remedy sought by the Welshes would run against CRIT or that CRIT is ‘the real party in interest.’”
Contractual disclaimers do not automatically defeat materiality in a criminal wire-fraud case. Other representations may still support liability, and the panel left their materiality to the jury.
“we hold that contractual disclaimers do not render immaterial other representations in criminal wire fraud prosecutions.”
Procedural preferences
An agency rejecting equitable tolling should give concrete reasons tied to the record. Merely reciting the legal standard and announcing that it was not met is insufficient for meaningful appellate review.
“We stress that, to facilitate future appellate review, the BIA should provide ‘specific and cogent reasons’ if it rejects Garcia’s equitable tolling argument on remand.”
Cautions
A crime involving moral turpitude need not require a specific intent to harm. A state offense requiring knowing deprivation of necessary care qualified because its minimum conduct carried a substantial risk of serious harm.
“But specific intent to cause harm ‘is not required for a crime to involve moral turpitude.’”
A pre-enforcement plaintiff must show a credible threat, beginning with whether the intended conduct is at least arguably prohibited. The age of the law and its enforcement history also bear on whether the asserted threat is too speculative.
“Where, as here, the government has not actually threatened prosecution of any plaintiff, to determine whether the threat of prosecution is nonetheless credible, we must first consider whether the plaintiff’s intended conduct is at least arguably proscribed by the challenged law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The petition for review is granted and the Board’s decision is vacated.”
“Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment”
“Applying Harris and its Ninth Circuit progeny, we hold that Smith did not default his claim and vacate the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition.”
“For the reasons above, we AFFIRM Rice’s conviction, but VACATE his sentence, and REMAND to the district court for resentencing and recalculation of restitution and forfeiture.”
“We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment, VACATE the order denying costs to EquiTrust, and REMAND to allow the district court to address the issue of costs.”
“We therefore REVERSE the district court’s order remanding this case to state court, and REMAND with instructions for the district court to exercise jurisdiction.”
“We REVERSE the district court order dismissing Reyes’ claims against Drs. Smith and Heatley and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Applying that opinion, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Cardenas' complaint.”
“The district court held that the claim failed as a matter of law. We agree, and affirm.”
“The district court suppressed Gilton's statements under the rule of Miranda v. Arizona ... We affirm.”
“We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”
“Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in this case in approving Sunnyslope's plan of reorganization and valuing the collateral assuming its continued use after reorganization as low-income housing.”
Draft for Judge Hurwitz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hurwitz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hurwitz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace