Ryan D. Nelson
How Judge Nelson rules, drawn from 68 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Nelson
Ryan Douglas Nelson is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Nelson received a commission on October 18, 2018.
Judge Nelson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Nelson'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 Nelson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Stevens v. Whitmore (In re Stevens), Nelson read “scheduled” to require listing property on a literal bankruptcy schedule. Disclosure only in a statement of financial affairs did not abandon the property to the debtors.
“These dictionary definitions show that the ordinary meaning of ‘scheduled’ was to include something on a literal schedule.”
In Bacon v. Woodward, Nelson reversed dismissal of Spokane firefighters’ as-applied Free Exercise claim because the city’s alleged exemption for neighboring firefighters could require equivalent accommodation for religious objectors.
“If the secular category of ‘firefighters from neighboring departments’ is exempt from Spokane’s policy, then the Free Exercise Clause mandates that religious objectors be granted equivalent accommodation.”
In Nebraska v. Su, Nelson rejected the federal procurement statute’s purpose clause as an independent source of presidential authority for a contractor minimum wage mandate and reversed dismissal of the states’ challenge.
“For these reasons, we conclude that § 101 is not a source of the President’s authority. We must find that authority, if it exists, in other operative sections of the FPASA.”
In his Kivett dissent, Nelson read the Supreme Court’s later Cantero decision as requiring a comparative preemption analysis that the circuit’s earlier mortgage-escrow decision had not used.
“After rehearing, I view Cantero as ‘clearly irreconcilable’ with Lusnak, since Lusnak did not apply the comparative analysis required by Cantero.”
In Yurok Tribe, Nelson dissented because he concluded the governing statute and contracts gave the agency no discretion sufficient to trigger Endangered Species Act consultation duties.
“Under Home Builders and Haaland, the generalized holding in Patterson that the ESA applies to the Klamath Project is no longer good law. Under the proper legal analysis, no statutory provision or contract provides agency discretion sufficient to trigger the ESA. Because the majority misreads our precedent, I respectfully dissent.”
Procedural preferences
In Falck Northern California Corp. v. Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC, Nelson dismissed an interlocutory appeal as moot because an amended complaint had superseded the pleading challenged on appeal. He rejected efficiency as a basis for jurisdiction over that moot appeal.
“But the complaint challenged on appeal is a legal nullity even if much like the operative complaint. Efficiency is no basis to provide appellate jurisdiction over an appeal that is moot.”
In United States v. Sapalasan, Nelson affirmed denial of suppression of drugs found in an inventory search of Sapalasan’s backpack because the initial separation of the backpack from its owner was lawful and did not depend on whether Sapalasan went to jail.
“Here, the lawfulness of the initial separation of Sapalasan from his backpack is unchallenged, so the justification of an inventory search does not depend on whether he was headed to jail.”
In Cabardo v. Patacsil, Nelson dismissed a bankruptcy appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the remand for factfinding left the adversary proceeding unfinished and the district court’s order was not final.
“Any order can finally resolve a proceeding if the proceeding is sliced thin enough. Cabardo Appellants attempt to slice the proceeding down to a single legal issue. That goes too far.”
In Godun, Nelson agreed that arbitration could not be compelled and said the visual-conspicuousness inquiry for online contract notice turned on reasonableness.
“As to step one of the inquiry-notice internet contract formation analysis, the bottom line of the visual- conspicuousness inquiry is reasonableness.”
In San Juan Capistrano, Nelson agreed the city lacked standing but separately suggested revisiting the circuit’s categorical standing rule in a suitable case.
“I write separately to highlight the potential, in the appropriate case, to revisit the court’s per se rule in light of intervening caselaw from other circuit courts and the Supreme Court.”
In Arizona v. Yellen, Nelson agreed with one standing theory but rejected a separate pre-enforcement theory because Arizona alleged no intended conduct prohibited by the provision.
“Arizona never alleged that it has taken (or would take, if not for fear of enforcement) action proscribed by the Offset Provision. The lack of such an allegation dooms Arizona’s argument for standing on this basis.”
Cautions
In Parker, Nelson concurred but cautioned against extending Brady disclosure duties to pretrial proceedings.
“I write separately to address why Brady should not be extended to pretrial proceedings.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The district court properly dismissed the City's claims because the City lacks standing and the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. AFFIRMED.”
“AFFIRMED in part REVERSED in part.”
“This appeal is DISMISSED as moot.”
“The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”
“Because Mr. Diaz-Torres has not met his burden of demonstrating that he is a member of a particular social group, the petition for review is DENIED.”
“PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.”
“AFFIRMED.”
“DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
Draft for Judge Nelson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nelson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nelson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace