Sri Srinivasan
How Judge Srinivasan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He affirms an agency's technical or ratemaking judgment only when the agency's own reasoning ties its factual findings to the choice it made -- a bare assertion that data was considered is not enough.
“We affirm the Commission's orders so long as FERC examined the relevant data and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”
He construes a narrow nondisclosure or secrecy statute no more broadly than its own terms -- a provision that seals one specific document does not, by extension, seal every other record that happens to reference or discuss it.
“By its terms, the statute provides for sealing of a pen register order itself, not sealing of any and all information the order may contain even if appearing in other documents.”
Procedural preferences
Jurisdiction is resolved before the merits, and a suit that cannot clear a threshold jurisdictional bar is dismissed on that basis alone -- the underlying substantive dispute the parties briefed is never reached.
“We do not reach the merits of the Association's claims because we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction over them.”
In separation-of-powers disputes over a President's own conduct, he distinguishes the office from the officeholder: campaigning for re-election is not an exercise of the presidency's official functions, even when the President is speaking on matters of public concern while doing so.
“When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act.”
Cautions
An agency cannot apply two different legal tests to two similar objections without explaining why one and not the other governs; an unexplained, outcome-determinative switch between standards forces a remand regardless of how the case might ultimately come out on the merits.
“The General Counsel's explanation in that regard falls short.”
He treats a procedural shortcut -- reworking an already-effective rate or rule on rehearing without notice-and-comment -- as an independent, fatal defect that requires vacatur on its own, without regard to whether the substantive change was otherwise justified.
“We grant the petitions based on one of the grounds Carriers assert: that the Commission failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it modified the Index in the Rehearing Order without adhering to notice-and-comment procedures.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.”
“We vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment to NIH in connection with PETA's second FOIA request and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to NIH as to PETA's third FOIA request.”
“We find inadequate justification, however, for the Commission's blanket requirement of at least two such studies as a precondition to any disease-related claim. In all other respects, we deny the petition for review.”
“We agree with the district court and affirm its judgment.”
“We conclude that no unlawful seizure occurred, and we therefore affirm.”
“We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government on the claims under Exemption 7(D) and under the exclusion set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)(1). We reverse the grant of summary judgment on both challenges to withholdings under Exemption 3 and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Finally, we vacate the district court's opinion with regard to Exemption 7(A).”
“We agree with the district court and affirm its entry of judgment for Record Press.”
“Because the district court made no relevant findings or conclusions under Rule 52(a) concerning its rejection of a fee award under the False Claims Act's fee-shifting provision, we vacate the denial of fees and remand for the court to make the relevant findings and conclusions.”
“The district court held that Getma failed to satisfy that stringent standard, and we agree.”
“We vacate the grant of summary judgment against Stein and remand for further proceedings.”
“we affirm the denial of NSC's request for a public-interest fee waiver.”
“We reject Fry's arguments and affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.”
“We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.”
“We conclude that FERC's determination was not arbitrary and capricious and thus deny Missouri River's petition for review.”
Put Judge Srinivasan's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Srinivasan actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Srinivasan's own signed orders and cites them.