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 [6], upheld §922(g)(1) against as-applied Second Amendment challenge by reference to historical traditions of disarming dangerous felons. United States v. Kalib Tucker ↗
PurposivismTextualism
In [4], required plaintiffs to plead independent commercial value under Ohio right-of-publicity statute and rejected liberal-construction arguments. Patricia LaFleur v. Yardi System… ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In [1], found IHA preempts Michigan’s additional licensing requirement for interstate wagering, enjoining state enforcement. Churchill Downs Tech. Initiative… ↗
In LaFleur v. Yardi Systems, Inc., two Ohio homeowners sued the operator of the PropertyShark website, alleging violations of Ohio’s statutory and common-law right of publicity because the site included their names, home addresses, purchase prices, and other property details in reports accessible to paying users without their consent. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs did not allege their identities had independent commercial value, a required element under Ohio law, and distinguished the case from precedents involving more targeted commercial use of a persona. It rejected arguments for liberal statutory construction and found no basis to certify questions to the Ohio Supreme Court, concluding that the missing element alone warranted dismissal.
William Powell Company, an Ohio valve manufacturer, sued Aviva Insurance Limited (successor to its Scottish insurer General Accident) for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment that Aviva must honor roughly $27 million in remaining coverage under 1950s–1970s general-liability policies for ongoing asbestos claims. The district court granted Aviva’s motion to dismiss, accepting Aviva’s argument that a 1981 New York “domestication” agreement between General Accident and its U.S. subsidiary had transferred and extinguished the Scottish insurer’s obligations. The Sixth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded, holding that the complaint’s well-pled allegations—that General Accident itself issued the Ohio policies, never notified or obtained Powell’s consent to any assignment, and remained liable—must be taken as true at the pleading stage. The court further reasoned that the district court could not properly rely on the one-sided domestication agreement to end the case without converting the motion to summary judgment and allowing Powell discovery into the agreement’s scope and effect.
In United States v. Brock, the government charged Leslie Brock with conspiring to distribute fentanyl, the use of which caused the death of N.C., after Brock sold fentanyl to Brendan Miller, who mailed it to N.C. in Alabama. A jury convicted Brock following trial evidence that N.C., experiencing fentanyl withdrawal, used the mailed fentanyl, appeared heavily intoxicated during a video call, and was found dead the next day with fentanyl in her blood and oral cavity, alongside cocaine. Brock appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove the fentanyl she supplied caused the death or that it was the same fentanyl involved. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury could reasonably find causation based on the timeline, N.C.’s statements and condition, the location of the remaining fentanyl near her body, and expert testimony on fentanyl’s effects, and that the presence of cocaine did not create an evidentiary gap precluding that conclusion.
In United States v. Joe’Veon Penson Willis, the defendant pled guilty to maintaining a drug-involved premises and aiding and abetting false statements during firearm purchases after a raid on the house he shared with his half-brother uncovered large quantities of methamphetamine and fentanyl along with multiple guns, including firearms bought through a straw purchaser. Willis challenged his 135-month below-Guidelines sentence, arguing that the two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises double-counted the same conduct punished by the underlying offense and that drugs found in common areas should not have been attributed to him. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the enhancement did not constitute double-counting because the base offense and the enhancement addressed distinct aspects of the conduct and that the drug attribution was proper under relevant-conduct rules. The court noted that the sentences on the two firearm counts exceeded the statutory maximum but found the error harmless because the sentences ran concurrently, so correcting it would not change the total term of imprisonment or affect Willis’s substantial rights.
Coffee Capital hired RPT Restaurant Accounting Services to handle financial tasks including third-party wire transfers under a written contract. After a fraudster impersonated a Coffee Capital executive via hacked email and obtained an unauthorized transfer of over $100,000, Coffee Capital sued RPT for negligence when it refused reimbursement. The district court granted summary judgment to RPT, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Michigan law bars a tort claim arising from a contractual relationship unless the defendant breached a duty separate and distinct from its contractual obligations; here, RPT’s duty to transfer funds only as authorized derived solely from the parties’ agreement, so no independent common-law duty existed to support a negligence action.
Jolena Brown, a Black woman employed by FCA US LLC since 1999 in various human-resources roles, sued the company under Title VII and Michigan law after her 2021 termination, alleging race and sex discrimination and retaliation. Brown’s performance had declined starting in 2017, leading to documented concerns from multiple supervisors, a 2018 internal racial-discrimination complaint against one supervisor that FCA investigated and found unsubstantiated (though it adjusted her rating), repeated job transfers, a performance-improvement plan, and eventual firing for ongoing issues like missed deadlines, poor communication, and unreliability. The district court granted summary judgment to FCA on the Title VII claims and dismissed the state claims without prejudice, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Brown failed to show her termination was pretextual or that any protected activity—such as her single 2018 complaint or unrelated reports—was causally linked to discrimination or retaliation under Title VII.
