“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A credit card company challenged an award of punitive damages and attorneys’ fees for cancelling a consumer’s credit card.
What happened in this case?
USAA Bank closed the credit card account of Michael Goff, who sought to arbitrate the dispute. The arbitrator ruled Goff was right and awarded him over $85,000 in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. A district court agreed, and USAA appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Trump judge Thomas Kirsch wrote a 2-1 decision, joined by Reagan judge Kenneth Ripple, that reversed the district court and threw out the award to Goff. Biden judge John Lee dissented in the March 2026 decision in USAA Savings Bank v Goff.
What was the basis for the decision of Trump judge Kirsch and judge Ripple?
Kirsch maintained that the arbitrator had violated the arbitration agreement by failing to conduct a “post-arbitration review” of the award of punitive damages as requested by USAA. In his view, the district court should have sent the matter back to the arbitrator for further proceedings.
Why did Judge Lee dissent?
Judge Lee disagreed. Based on the record, he maintained, USAA had “numerous opportunities” to dispute the punitive damages award, including after the arbitration hearing. He noted that the arbitrator had issued an interim ruling on the punitive damages before it became final, and that USAA Bank had chosen not to reopen the hearing to review that interim award. Any doubt, he concluded, should be resolved “in favor of confirming the award.”
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling by Trump judge Kirsch obviously harms Michael Goff and his ability to recover damages from USAA Bank and hold it accountable for improperly cancelling his credit card. The decision also sets a bad precedent, particularly in the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.