Jay Scott Bybee
How Judge Bybee rules, drawn from 49 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Bybee decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When an agency relies on an earlier categorical ruling, he expects it to account for material statutory revisions and later state-court interpretations before carrying that precedent forward.
“The BIA erred in relying on Matter of Ruiz-Lopez without considering the material changes to the mens rea requirements in RCW § 46.61.024 and the Washington courts’ reading of those changes.”
In due-process review, he looks beyond a statutory scheme's formal labels to determine whether the state has effectively shifted proof of an element that distinguishes criminal from innocent conduct.
“In the end, once we pierce the form of the state’s scheme, we have little difficulty concluding that Arizona has shifted the burden of proof from the state to the defendant to prove a core element of child molestation—that the defendant touched the child’s private parts with some kind of sexual interest.”
He treats circuit precedent as controlling unless intervening higher authority is clearly irreconcilable with it, regardless of whether the current panel would decide the issue differently.
“Whether we would have reached the same conclusion is irrelevant. Until an en banc court or the Supreme Court tells us otherwise, we are bound by our prior decision.”
Procedural preferences
For Miranda custody in a home, he uses a fact-intensive totality test focused on visible police presence, restraint, isolation, and whether a reasonable person would understand that the interview could end.
“we conclude that several factors are relevant to whether the circumstances of Craighead’s interrogation effected a police-dominated atmosphere: (1) the number of law enforcement personnel and whether they were armed; (2) whether the suspect was at any point restrained, either by physical force or by threats; (3) whether the suspect was isolated from others; and (4) whether the suspect was informed that he was free to leave or terminate the interview, and the context in which any such statements were made.”
For removal jurisdiction, he measures the amount in controversy by the relief placed at stake in the operative complaint, including recoverable future damages rather than only losses accrued before removal.
“If a plaintiff claims at the time of removal that her termination caused her to lose future wages, and if the law entitles her to recoup those future wages if she prevails, then there is no question that future wages are ‘at stake’ in the litigation, whatever the likelihood that she will actually recover them.”
Cautions
In his Nasri concurrence, Bybee reasoned that an in rem forfeiture proceeding cannot be justiciable while the government has neither seized nor meaningfully controlled the foreign property.
“The ‘clarifying principles’ espoused by the justiciability doctrines, Allen, 468 U.S. at 752, lead me to conclude that civil asset forfeiture proceedings are nonjusticiable when the district court purporting to exercise in rem jurisdiction has neither seized nor meaningfully controlled the property.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We conclude that Bruce presented sufficient evidence that, if believed, established her Indian status. We further hold that the court's error was not harmless. We therefore reverse.”
“We must decide whether a state court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing sua sponte when presented with evidence of juror bias is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law ... We hold that it is not. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court denying the appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”
“Concluding that Smith's suit is within the first exception of Montana v. United States ... and the rule in Williams v. Lee ... we affirm.”
“Because the officers had no reason to believe that Flatter was armed or dangerous, the officers had no grounds for the search. We reverse the ruling of the district court and vacate Flatter's conviction.”
“Finding that the record is clear that counsel requested critical jury instructions that were correct under federal law but clearly in error under Idaho law and that the error was not harmless, we reverse the judgment of the district court and grant the writ.”
“We hold that the district court lacked in personam jurisdiction over Bustos and, therefore, erred when it entered the order of disgorgement against him. ... We therefore VACATE the district court's order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED and REMANDED.”
“For the forgoing reasons, Snipe's conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.”
“We affirm the district court's ruling that Craighead was not entitled to a Franks hearing ... On the Miranda question, we reverse the district court's ruling that the interrogation in Craighead's home was not custodial and that Miranda warnings were not required. Craighead's self-incriminating statements should have been suppressed. We remand for further proceedings.”
“For the reasons explained below, we agree that Slovik was denied his confrontation rights and that the right was clearly established; accordingly, we reverse.”
“Because the area in which the police officers discovered the incriminating evidence 'immediately adjoin[ed] the place of arrest,' the officers were justified in conducting a search of that area without either probable cause or reasonable suspicion ... we nevertheless affirm the district court's denial of the suppression motion.”
“On appeal, the government argues that we have recognized similar extended border searches as reasonable. We agree with the government and reverse the judgment of the district court.”
“We reverse and remand so the district court can determine under the proper standard whether an Article 17 'accident' has occurred. REVERSED AND REMANDED.”
Draft for Judge Bybee with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bybee, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bybee's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace