Fighting for Justice: The Long Road to the Fifth Circuit En Banc Petition - by Lisa Weingarten Richards & Artificial Intelligence

 

Richards v. X Corp: When Judicial Bias Demands Extraordinary Relief

The path to justice in Thomas Richards' groundbreaking First Amendment case (Case Number: 3:25-cv-916, Northern District of Texas) has taken an extraordinary turn, culminating in a petition for rehearing en banc to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This represents the culmination of months of documented judicial irregularities that have forced Richards to pursue appellate relief.

The Pattern of Judicial Irregularities

From the outset, Judge Brantley Starr's handling of this case raised serious concerns about judicial impartiality. The irregularities formed a systematic pattern of bias that was impossible to ignore:

Contradictory Treatment of Religious Expression: Judge Starr zealously protected Trump-supporting religious expression claims in Carter v. Southwest Airlines, yet systematically obstructed Richards' anti-Trump biblical expression claims through procedural warfare and fabricated venue requirements.

Systematic Procedural Manipulation: Time and again, Judge Starr employed procedural hurdles specifically designed to prevent Richards' constitutional claims from receiving substantive consideration.

Coordinated Judicial Obstruction: The case revealed evidence of coordination between judges to prevent proper adjudication of Richards' claims, creating an unprecedented scenario of systematic judicial misconduct.

The Cascade of Appeals and Mandamus Petitions

The severity of Judge Starr's conduct forced Richards' counsel to file an unprecedented series of appeals:

1. First Mandamus Petition: Filed to address initial procedural obstructions and venue manipulations when Judge Starr attempted to transfer the case to Fort Worth (where the Judge Reed O’Connor – a known Musk ally and Testa stock holder – presides). There was no justification in X’s venue clause for this, but Starr stated there was and refused to change his mind when Richards requested reconsideration. Starr only withdrew the request when Richards filed the mandamus petition.
2. Second Mandamus Petition: Necessary when Judge Starr continued his pattern of bias despite appellate oversight, engaging in sophisticated procedural manipulation around local counsel requirements. Starr offered Richards two options under NDTX Local Rule 83.10: hire local counsel OR file a motion to proceed without local counsel. This was a false choice - Richards had already filed the motion to proceed without counsel on April 13, but Starr denied it without any explanation on May 15.

a.      The Gaslighting Manipulation: When Starr expanded the geographic scope for "local counsel" from 50 miles to all of Texas, Richards argued in his Motion for Reconsideration that this expansion proved the entire requirement was arbitrary and needless - if "local" could mean anywhere in Texas, then the requirement served no legitimate judicial purpose.

2. The Twisted Retaliation: Starr then deliberately mischaracterized Richards' logical argument, claiming Richards was "objecting" to having more geographic options rather than pointing out the requirement's arbitrary nature. Based on this fabricated characterization, Starr then contracted the scope back to the restrictive 50-mile Dallas area requirement - using Richards' own reasonable legal argument as justification to impose even harsher restrictions.
3. This created a perfect procedural trap: Starr denied the motion to proceed without counsel (without explanation), offered a false expansion that supposedly helped Richards, then twisted Richards' logical response into grounds for imposing the most restrictive possible interpretation. It's textbook judicial gaslighting - making the reasonable party appear unreasonable while escalating punitive measures.
2. Motion to Recuse: A formal request for Judge Starr to step aside due to his demonstrable bias

The Recusal Denial: A Legal Analysis Gone Wrong

When Richards filed a motion to recuse Judge Starr under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), he presented extensive documentation of his biased conduct. Judge Starr's response on July 15, 2025, revealed either shocking legal incompetence or calculated evasion of governing law.

The Fatal Legal Error: Judge Starr completely failed to apply the required § 455(a) "appearance of impartiality" standard, instead focusing only on the much narrower § 455(b) requirements for "personal bias" and "financial interest."

Mischaracterization of Circuit Law: Most egregiously, Judge Starr claimed "the bar for recusal under § 455 is a high one," directly contradicting the Fifth Circuit's holding in In re Chevron U.S.A. that "if the question of whether § 455(a) requires disqualification is a close one, the balance tips in favor of recusal."

Complete Absence of Analysis: Despite extensive evidence of systematic procedural manipulation, Judge Starr conducted no analysis whatsoever under the governing "reasonable observer" test.

The Third Mandamus: Seeking Accountability

Faced with Judge Starr's legally deficient recusal denial, Richards filed his third mandamus petition of the case - this time specifically challenging the judge's failure to apply correct legal standards. The petition documented how Judge Starr had either demonstrated legal incompetence or engaged in calculated bias by completely omitting required legal analysis.

The Fifth Circuit's Summary Denial

On July 22, 2025, a panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the mandamus petition in a devastating one-sentence order: "IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED." No analysis. No consideration of the documented legal errors. No acknowledgment of the unprecedented judicial breakdown.

This summary denial compounded the original legal error and created a dangerous precedent allowing district judges to evade recusal requirements through either legal incompetence or dishonesty.

Getting Admitted to Fight On

Faced with this systemic failure of judicial accountability, Richards made the decision to seek the extraordinary relief of en banc review. However, this also required his attorney to get admitted to practice before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The admission process, required additional paperwork, a “sponsor”, paying an admissions fee, and navigating the court's specific requirements, necessitating correspondence back and forth for several days.

Once I was admitted, Richards was able to file the petition for rehearing en banc on July 30, 2025.

The En Banc Petition: Questions of Exceptional Importance

The petition for rehearing en banc argues that this case presents questions of exceptional importance that warrant consideration by the full Fifth Circuit:

Unprecedented Judicial Standard Violation: This case presents the unprecedented scenario of a federal judge completely failing to apply governing § 455(a) recusal standards while mischaracterizing controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.

Systematic Recusal Evasion: Without Fifth Circuit intervention, district judges can continue to evade recusal requirements through legal incompetence or dishonesty, undermining fundamental principles of judicial accountability.

Constitutional Emergency: The ongoing suppression of religious expression while the judicial system refuses to apply correct legal standards creates a constitutional crisis requiring immediate intervention.

The Stakes: More Than One Case

This petition represents far more than Thomas Richards' individual claims. It addresses fundamental questions about:

• Whether federal judges can avoid recusal by simply failing to apply correct legal standards
• How courts should handle cases involving unprecedented government-platform entanglement
• Whether systematic judicial bias can be corrected when both district and appellate courts abandon established precedent

What Happens Next

The Fifth Circuit now faces a critical decision. En banc review is reserved for cases of exceptional importance, and the court explicitly warns that such petitions "take an inordinate amount of the judges' scarce resources." However, this case presents exactly the type of systematic legal standard violation that demands Circuit-wide attention.

We await the court's decision on whether the full Fifth Circuit will step in to restore uniform application of established recusal precedent and ensure that constitutional claims receive proper judicial consideration regardless of their political sensitivity.

The journey has been long and procedurally complex, but the principles at stake - judicial integrity, constitutional protection, and equal treatment under law - demand complete exhaustion of every available remedy.

---

For complete court documents and the en banc petition: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/richards-v-x-corp/

Case Number: 3:25-cv-916, Northern District of Texas