United States v. Ruiz; United States v. Hebert

Ruiz; Hebert · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 5, 2026 · No. 24-2128; 24-7030

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit grants petitions for rehearing en banc in the consolidated appeals of United States v. Ruiz and United States v. Hebert. The court vacates its prior judgments, stays issuance of the mandates, reopens the matters, and directs supplemental briefing on the treatment of non-Indian status under the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152. Oral argument before the en banc court is scheduled for August 17, 2026.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Jerome A. Holmes; Harris L. Hartz; Timothy M. Tymkovich; Scott M. Matheson Jr.; Bobby R. Baldock; Mary Beck Briscoe; Robert E. Bacharach; Gregory A. Phillips; Carolyn B. McHugh; Allison H. Eid; Nancy L. Moritz; Michael R. Murphy; Richard E. N. Federico
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decision date
May 5, 2026
Docket number
24-2128; 24-7030
Procedural posture
The court considered the United States' petitions for rehearing en banc in Ruiz's and Hebert's criminal appeals. A majority of the active judges voted to rehear the matters en banc.
Precedential value
Published en banc rehearing order; substantive merits unresolved
Parties
Joel Ruiz, Dennis Hebert v. United States of America
Disposition
vacated

Topics

appellate procedurestatutory interpretationindian affairstribal jurisdictioncriminal procedure

Practice areas

Federal criminal lawAppellate procedureFederal Indian law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a defendant's non-Indian status under the General Crimes Act is an essential element that the indictment must allege and on which the government bears the initial burden of production, or instead an affirmative defense that the defendant must raise and initially support.
  2. Whether the government or the defendant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion on non-Indian status.
  3. How the Indian canon of statutory interpretation should affect the analysis.
  4. If non-Indian status is treated as an affirmative defense with an initial burden of production on the defendant, whether Ruiz's and Hebert's cases should be remanded for retrial.

Holdings

  1. The court granted the petitions for rehearing en banc after a majority of the active judges voted to rehear the matters.
  2. The court vacated its prior judgments, stayed issuance of the mandates, reopened the matters, and partially procedurally consolidated them for supplemental briefing and oral argument.

Key quotations

We therefore GRANT the petitions, VACATE the court’s November 18, 2025 and January 28, 2026 judgments, STAY issuance of the mandates, and REOPEN these matters. (2)
Although these entire cases will be reheard en banc, we direct the parties to address the following questions in supplemental briefs: (2)

Factual background

The order concerns two federal criminal appeals involving Joel Ruiz and Dennis Hebert under the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152. The order does not recount the underlying criminal facts; it addresses the en banc petitions and the unresolved allocation of burdens concerning a defendant's non-Indian status.

Procedural history

The court had previously entered judgments on November 18, 2025, and January 28, 2026. It granted rehearing en banc, vacated those judgments, stayed issuance of the mandates, reopened the matters, and partially consolidated them for supplemental briefing and oral argument.

Remand instructions

No remand was ordered at this stage. The parties were directed to submit supplemental briefing addressing the specified questions, and the matters were scheduled for en banc oral argument on August 17, 2026.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…