Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Jane Stranch
Jane Branstetter Stranch is a federal judge on senior status with the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. She joined the court in 2010 after a nomination from President Barack Obama. She assumed senior status on July 14, 2025.[1]
Early life and education
A native of Nashville, Tennessee, Stranch earned both her bachelor's degree in 1975 and her J.D. in 1978 from Vanderbilt University.[1]
Professional career
- 2010-2025: Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
- 2025-present: Senior judge
- 1978-2010: Private practice, Nashville, Tenn.[1]
Judicial career
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
 |
| Nominee Information |
| Name: Jane Branstetter Stranch |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit |
| Progress |
| Confirmed 403 days after nomination. |
 Nominated: August 6, 2009
|
| ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Well Qualified
|
| Questionnaire: Questionnaire |
| Hearing: October 21, 2009
|
| QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more) |
| Reported: November 19, 2009
|
| Confirmed: September 13, 2010
|
| Vote: 71-21
|
Stranch was nominated by President Obama on August 6, 2009, to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to fill the vacancy left when Judge Martha Daughtrey assumed senior status. The American Bar Association rated Stranch Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Well Qualified for the nomination.[2] Hearings on Stranch's nomination were held before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on October 21, 2009, and her nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on November 19, 2009. Stranch was confirmed on a recorded 71-21 vote of the U.S. Senate on September 13, 2010, and she received her commission on September 15, 2010. She assumed senior status on July 14, 2025.[1][3]
Noteworthy cases
Federal judges arrive at disparate conclusions regarding Auer deference and agency guidance (2018)
On October 22, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued dissimilar conclusions in U.S. v. Havis that either challenged or upheld the use of Auer deference—a deference principle in which a federal court defers to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous rule promulgated by the agency.[4][5]
The case involves the sentencing of Jeffrey Havis on a firearms charge in Tennessee. The United States Sentencing Commission increased Havis’ base sentence due to a prior conviction for attempting to deliver cocaine. Havis argued that the commission’s sentencing guidelines only call for enhanced sentences in the case of a completed drug transfer. The sentencing guidelines for attempted transfers are only featured in the agency’s commentary on sentencing guidelines and, Havis claimed, are not entitled to Auer deference.[4][5]
Commentary is a form of agency guidance—documents created by government agencies to explain, interpret, or advise interested parties about rules, laws, and procedures. Guidance documents clarify and affect how agencies administer regulations and programs. However, they are not legally binding in the same way as rules issued through one of the rulemaking processes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[4][5]
The Sixth Circuit upheld Havis’ sentence due to precedent in the 2012 case U.S. v. Evans, which held that the sentencing guidelines include attempts to sell or distribute drugs. However, all three judges on the panel—Amul Thapar, Jane Stranch, and Martha Daughtrey—agreed that the 2012 court may have reached the incorrect conclusion by treating agency guidance as binding. In order to overturn precedent, Thapar and Stranch agreed that the case would need to be heard by the Sixth Circuit en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. Daughtrey dissented and argued that U.S. v. Evans was not controlling precedent because the case did not address Havis' concerns regarding the separation of powers.[4][5]
Thapar criticized Auer deference in his concurrence, arguing that the deference principle violates the separation of powers by calling for federal courts to yield to agency interpretations of their own rules. "How is it fair in a court of justice for judges to defer to one of the litigants?” questioned Thapar. "In essence, the argument boils down to this—the government is populated by experts and when they speak we should tip the scales of justice in their favor. Such deference is found nowhere in the Constitution—the document to which judges take an oath.”[4][5]
Stranch, on the other hand, defended Auer deference in her concurrence. She argued that “[t]he current arguments for curtailing agency deference risk dismissing a system that Congress created out of a need to employ the significant expertise held by agencies and their stakeholders in complex areas of the law and instead substituting courts that are ill-equipped for the task.”[4][5]
Should Havis seek further review, the case would be reheard by the full Sixth Circuit.[4][5]
Warrantless use of third-party cell phone data upheld (2016)
- See also: Sixth Circuit (United States v. Timothy Ivory Carpenter and Timothy Michael Sanders, Nos. 14-1572, 14-1805)
- See also: Sixth Circuit (United States v. Timothy Ivory Carpenter and Timothy Michael Sanders, Nos. 14-1572, 14-1805)
On April 13, 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld a judgment reached by Judge Sean Cox of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In this case, Timothy Ivory Carpenter and Timothy Michael Sanders were convicted based on cell tower data collected by the petitioners' cellular service providers and obtained by the government without a warrant; instead, the information was obtained via judicial orders authorizing the collection and use of the data under the Stored Communications Act (SCA). Carpenter and Sanders moved to suppress the evidence before trial, arguing that the government both conducted an illegal search without a warrant and improperly seized their private property (the cell tower data), in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Cox denied the motion, and both Carpenter and Sanders were convicted at trial.
On appeal, Carpenter and Sanders challenged the denial of their motion to suppress the cell tower data. In upholding the convictions, Judge Raymond Kethledge, writing for a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit, held that the use of the cellphone data did not require a warrant or a showing of probable cause because the data was not subject to considerations of private property under the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kethledge further held that the business records used in this case did not contain any information regarding the content of the calls and, therefore, did not constitute private information protected by the Fourth Amendment. Judge Jane Stranch wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment in which she stated that while she agreed the motion to suppress the cell data evidence was correctly denied by the district court, there were outstanding Fourth Amendment jurisprudential concerns raised by the case that must be addressed by federal courts going forward.
Stranch wrote,
| “ |
...I do not see this case primarily as a challenge to the constitutionality of the SCA’s provisions that authorize the government to seek secured communications through either an order or a warrant. The question before us is one that courts routinely answer: did the search at issue require a warrant? ... Determining the parameters of the Fourth Amendment is the task of the judiciary. ... The runaway pace of technological development makes this task more difficult. But the job is ours nonetheless and the circumstances before us lead me to believe that we have more work to do to determine the best methods for assessing the application of the Fourth Amendment in the context of new technology.[6] |
” |
The petitioners appealed the Sixth Circuit's ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case during the court's 2017 term.[7][8]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Federal Judicial Center, "Stranch, Jane Branstetter," accessed July 14, 2025
- ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 111th Congress," accessed November 23, 2016
- ↑ United States Congress, "PN885 — Jane Branstetter Stranch — The Judiciary," accessed November 23, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Reuters, "6th Circuit judge (and SCOTUS short-lister) calls for end to Auer deference," October 23, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Reason, "Three Judges, Four Opinions, and a Debate on Auer Deference," October 23, 2018
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, United States of America v. Timothy Ivory Carpenter, Timothy Michael Sanders April 13, 2016
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Carpenter v. United States, June 5, 2017
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by - |
United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit 2010-2025 |
Succeeded by Whitney Hermandorfer |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominated | |||
