Jacqueline H. Nguyen
How Judge Nguyen rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Nguyen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a federal tort case arising from airport screening, Nguyen applied the local statutory definition and ordinary meaning of officer and search. She declined to add a criminal-investigation limitation that Congress omitted, where screeners were legally empowered to conduct searches for items prohibited aboard aircraft.
“The Supreme Court instructs us not to ‘read into the text additional limitations designed to narrow the scope of the law enforcement proviso.’”
In a COVID-testing reimbursement case, Nguyen looked for congressional intent before recognizing an implied private remedy. Mandatory language directed at insurers did not create a provider's right of action when providers were only the objects of the obligation and the statutory scheme specified agency enforcement mechanisms.
“Congress’s use of mandatory language alone is not enough to create an implied private right of action.”
In a qualified-immunity appeal arising from a protest, Nguyen resolved disputed facts in the plaintiff's favor at summary judgment. If a jury credited the account that he was peacefully holding a sign rather than obstructing police, the absence of a legitimate justification supported an inference of retaliation for protected speech.
“If a factfinder concludes that there was no legitimate justification for Panighetti’s actions, they could reasonably infer that those actions were motivated by retaliatory animus.”
In the same protest case, Nguyen assessed seizure by the objective intent conveyed through the force used rather than the officer's stated subjective purpose. Firing a projectile designed to incapacitate could manifest an intent to restrain even if the officer said he meant to make the protester leave.
“Whether Panighetti may have subjectively intended to repel Sanderlin rather than restrain him is irrelevant to the analysis.”
Procedural preferences
In an immigration reopening case, Nguyen kept the threshold prima facie inquiry distinct from the agency's ultimate discretionary decision. Prima facie eligibility requires a reasonable likelihood of success, while the heavier requirement that new evidence would likely change the result belongs to the discretionary ground for denial.
“Today, we clarify any possible confusion in our case law and reaffirm that the ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard applies to decisions made on the prima facie ground, and the ‘would likely change’ standard applies to decisions made on the discretionary ground.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because agent Armour's actions were not interrogation or its functional equivalent, we affirm.”
“We affirm Castillo's forfeiture judgment.”
“Because the ALJ failed to do so, we remand for further proceedings.”
“We agree that O'Shea mandates abstention and affirm.”
“The petition for review is DENIED.”
“We therefore reverse and remand.”
“We find no error and affirm.”
“PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.”
“Because the administrative search exception does not apply and Ayers's presence was not necessary to aid in the officers' execution of the warrant, we affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity. AFFIRMED.”
“We are not persuaded, and we affirm.”
“We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of OMB.”
Draft for Judge Nguyen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nguyen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nguyen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace