Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Living constitutionalismOriginalism
In [11] applies Bruen-style history-and-tradition analysis to uphold § 922(g)(1) as consistent with Founding-era regulations of dangerous individuals. United States v. Edlando Watson ↗
In [4] applies Monell and Auriemma/Killinger precedents without questioning their validity, holding that ultra vires acts cannot create municipal policy. Gary Betts v. Boone County, Illi… ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In [4] rejects Monell liability where official acted contrary to state law, limiting government exposure; in [11] permits disarmament only when aligned with historical tradition rather than deference to legislative judgment. Gary Betts v. Boone County, Illi… ↗ United States v. Edlando Watson ↗
Party: Republican →B.A., University of Notre DameJ.D., Northwestern University
MB
Michael Brian Brennan
Judge, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Born 1963 · Milwaukee, WI
The case arose after an industrial fire in Richmond, Indiana, that burned for over a week and allegedly caused injuries to nearby residents and businesses; 150 plaintiffs sued the City and other property owners in state court under various tort theories, and the defendants removed the suit to federal court as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act. The district court raised the Act’s local-event exception on its own, concluded that all claims stemmed from the single Indiana fire, and remanded the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the local-event exception is jurisdictional because it defines what qualifies as a removable mass action and therefore may be raised at any time. The court further held that the fire plainly constituted an “event or occurrence” in Indiana that produced the alleged injuries there (or in an adjacent state), so every claim arose from that local event and the exception applied.
In 2015, American Airlines contracted with Twin Hill to produce new uniforms, but after rollout, many employees reported health issues such as rashes, respiratory problems, and allergic reactions, including some claiming symptoms from proximity to the garments. A group of employees sued the airline and manufacturer under the Class Action Fairness Act, asserting products liability (strict and negligent) and intentional tort claims, but the district court excluded the plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses as unreliable and granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, first confirming subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA because the fourth amended complaint properly invoked the statute’s prerequisites despite an earlier version that dropped class allegations. The court held that, without the excluded experts, the plaintiffs lacked any evidence that the uniforms were defective or caused their injuries. It further ruled that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine (including Illinois’s Tweedy variant) did not apply, as the uniforms did not malfunction in a manner that would permit an inference of defect or causation absent direct proof.
The case arose when the Betts family sued Boone County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that former coroner Wesley Hyland violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by retaining their sister Louise’s skull as a trophy after her 1977 murder investigation, contrary to a state statute requiring coroners to promptly return remains to next of kin. The district court dismissed the claims, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the County was not liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services because Hyland’s conduct did not establish an official municipal policy or custom; instead, it violated Illinois law (55 ILCS 5/3-3021), which expressly directed coroners to release decedents’ bodies to families. Drawing on precedents such as Auriemma v. Rice and Killinger v. Johnson, the opinion explained that an official with final authority cannot create Monell liability by acting ultra vires or contrary to state law, as municipal responsibility requires implementation rather than frustration of governing policy.
Jewel Sanitary Napkins sued Busy Beaver Publications for defamation after Busy Beaver published a reader-submitted ad in one of its regional editions questioning the safety of Jewel’s Reign sanitary pads, which contain graphene and are marketed for health benefits to Amish communities. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Busy Beaver and its denial of Jewel’s sanctions motion. Because Jewel conceded it was a limited-purpose public figure, Wisconsin defamation law and First Amendment precedent required it to prove actual malice—publication with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The court held that no evidence supported such a finding: the proofreader who reviewed the ad had no serious doubts about its accuracy, minor punctuation changes did not materially alter its meaning, failure to investigate further was not reckless disregard, and Busy Beaver’s offer of free advertising instead of a retraction did not show bad faith. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying sanctions, as Busy Beaver produced the original submission once subpoenaed and any discovery delays were largely attributable to Jewel’s own lack of diligence.
The case concerned Heriberto Perez-Castillo’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge found him ineligible both because his Illinois battery conviction against family members qualified as a crime of domestic violence and because he failed to demonstrate that his U.S.-citizen wife would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The court denied the petition, holding that Perez-Castillo had waived the hardship claim before the Board and that, even if reached, the record did not compel reversal under the substantial-evidence standard, while the domestic-violence conviction independently barred relief. The opinion also addressed the petitioner’s opening brief, which contained two dozen fabricated quotations, seven nonexistent or mislabeled Seventh Circuit cases, and multiple false factual assertions traceable to AI use by contract attorney Farah Chalisa; lead counsel Abdullah Salah, who filed the brief without review, was fined $5,000 under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46, while Chalisa was referred to the Illinois disciplinary commission.
The case concerned whether Galesburg Community Unit School District No. 205 violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by proposing to place C.T., an elementary student with behavioral disabilities, at a private therapeutic day school in another district rather than in a special education classroom at his local school. After an independent hearing officer ruled for the district, C.T.’s parents sought judicial review, and the district court reversed, holding that the proposed placement violated the IDEA’s least restrictive environment requirement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court committed no legal error and that its factual findings were not clearly erroneous. The court reasoned that C.T. could receive a satisfactory education in the local classroom with supplementary aids and services, such as a one-on-one aide, and that the district’s explanations for rejecting those measures lacked cogency and responsiveness to contrary evidence.