This was a comment I made to an August 14 blog post -- Burning the Midnight Oil in the Northern District of Texas - Reason.com
"As counsel in this case, I should clarify that Judge Starr's characterization is incomplete and misses the point entirely. There were two defendants with separate response deadlines, permitting two separate reply briefs under Local Rule 7.1(f) - which uses plural "Briefs" in its heading. The motion for reconsideration wasn't about his working hours, but about his failure to address substantive constitutional arguments. In his order denying reconsideration, Judge Starr stated that Richards was "not entitled to multiple reply briefs" and cited Local Rule 7.1(f) as authority - but the rule contains no such restriction and its plural heading ("Reply Briefs") contemplates exactly what occurred here. This effectively admits he never considered the second reply brief that addressed substantive constitutional arguments. The judge's interpretation would create an impossible situation where plaintiffs cannot adequately respond to multiple defendants with staggered deadlines in emergency TRO proceedings. This case involves serious First Amendment issues regarding alleged government censorship of religious expression, yet the court continues to avoid constitutional analysis through procedural barriers that don't exist in the written rules. This pattern began when Judge Starr initially tried to transfer the case to Fort Worth by misreading X Corp's Terms of Service to claim venue was improper in Dallas - despite the Terms explicitly permitting "U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas" (Fort Worth is where Judge Reed O'Connor, who owns Tesla stock, frequently presides)."
Case filings are available at Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com
No comments:
Post a Comment