The latest development in Thomas Richards' case against X Corp. and Donald Trump (3:25-cv-916 in the Northern District of Texas - Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com) reveals how Judge Brantley Starr continues to manipulate procedure to avoid addressing constitutional merits.
The
Reply Brief That Was Never Read
When
Richards filed his motion for reconsideration of the denied TRO, both X Corp.
and Trump filed responses on different dates. Following standard practice when
multiple defendants raise different arguments, Richards filed separate reply
briefs addressing each defendant's distinct points.
Judge
Starr's August 13 response was telling: he openly admitted he never
considered Richards' second reply brief, claiming authority from Local Rule
7.1(f) to ignore properly filed briefing. Memorandum
Opinion and Order – #79 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) –
CourtListener.com
The
Rule Says the Opposite
Here's the
problem: the NDTX Local Rule 7.1(f) doesn't support Judge Starr's
interpretation. The rule is titled "Time for Reply Briefs"
(plural, not singular) and states that "a party who has filed an opposed
motion may file a reply brief within 14 days from the date the response
is filed."
When
multiple defendants file separate responses, each constitutes "the
response" triggering its own reply deadline. The rule drafters
deliberately used plural language in the heading - compare this to NDTX Local
Rule 7.1(e), which uses singular "Response and Brief." CIVRULES.pdf
(p 12-13)
Judge
Starr's interpretation requires ignoring both the plural heading and the
singular response structure. Under basic principles of legal construction, the
difference between "Brief" (singular) and "Briefs" (plural)
-- in the same section -- must have
meaning.
Judicial
Legislation
What Judge
Starr has done is create a legal limitation that exists nowhere in any written
rule. His interpretation effectively allows defendants to coordinate filing
responses on different dates to limit a plaintiff's ability to respond -
turning procedural rules into strategic weapons.
This is
judicial legislation: creating law where none exists. Federal judges are bound
by the written rules, not their personal preferences about briefing limits.
The
Pattern Continues
This isn't
Judge Starr's first procedural manipulation in Richards' case. Previous
incidents include:
- The two-week TRO delay: Letting Richards' emergency
motion sit for two weeks without mentioning a required "proposed
order," then denying relief immediately after receiving it
- Venue transfer manipulation: Ordering improper transfer
based on misreading X Corp's terms, requiring expensive mandamus to
correct
- Local counsel deception: Offering false choices then
punishing Richards for selecting the offered option
Richards
has undertaken what may be the most comprehensive challenge to judicial
misconduct in recent federal court history. He filed three separate mandamus
petitions to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Judge Starr's
rulings, sought Judge Starr's recusal from the case, and his counsel even got
admitted to the Fifth Circuit so he could file a petition for rehearing en banc.
Despite these extraordinary efforts to obtain fair judicial consideration,
Judge Starr continues to manipulate procedure rather than address the
constitutional merits.
Richards first filed for emergency TRO relief in mid-April, but instead of addressing the ongoing constitutional violations, Judge Starr has spent months devising new ways to deny and delay relief. While Richards should have had protection from X Corp.'s shadowbanning algorithms months ago, the focus now shifts to responding to X Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss filed yesterday.
Constitutional
Avoidance Through Procedure
The common
thread in all these incidents is Judge Starr's systematic refusal to address
the First Amendment issues at the heart of Richards' case. X Corp. removed over
67,000 pieces of Richards' religious content in apparent retaliation for his
criticism of Elon Musk's policies.
Rather
than analyze whether this constitutes government censorship through Musk's role
as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Judge Starr consistently
hides behind fabricated procedural barriers. (Note that Trump has assured that
Musk’s DOGE influence will continue even after his official role ends - Drugs,
marital advice and that black eye: key takeaways from Trump's Oval Office
send-off for Elon Musk, The Guardian (May 30, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/30/key-takeaways-musk-trump-send-off.)
Trump also created a new executive order giving Musk yet another big win for
his businesses August 14 Trump
hands Elon Musk big win with new order https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/trump-hands-elon-musk-big-win-with-new-order/ar-AA1KwDsa?uxMode=ruby&ocid=edgdhpruby&pc=ASTS&cvid=f9a6c315aeac4117800ffb44eade7b71&ei=8)
What
This Means
When federal judges can invent limitations that don't exist in written rules, the entire system of procedural fairness breaks down. Every litigant has the right to have their properly filed briefs considered by the court - not dismissed based on judicial preferences masquerading as legal requirements.
Richards'
case involves serious constitutional questions about government censorship of
religious expression. These issues deserve fair consideration based on actual
law, not procedural manipulation designed to avoid difficult constitutional
analysis.
The written rules exist for a reason. Judges who ignore them in favor of invented limitations undermine the rule of law itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment