Thomas Richards v. X Corp. 3:25-cv-916 -- Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division -- Judge: Brantley Starr
Today Tommy Richards filed a Motion for Reconsideration that exposes a fundamental breakdown in judicial process. The timeline speaks for itself:
August 5, 2025, 8:47 PM: He filed his reply brief responding to Trump's opposition to his emergency motion.
August 5, 2025: Judge Starr's order denying his motion was signed, dated, and filed. (Memorandum Opinion and Order – #76 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com )
The Problem: Court records now show the judge's order was filed at 12:22 PM - more than 8 hours before Tommy's reply brief was filed at 8:47 PM. This is objective proof from the court's own electronic filing system that the judge ruled without waiting for or considering the legal arguments.
Inappropriate Judicial Commentary
Rather than provide legal analysis for denying relief against President Trump, the Court offered this strange response: the Court was "flattered but does not think that highly of itself."
This is completely inappropriate for federal court. Constitutional cases require serious legal analysis, not casual, informal commentary that sounds more like a conversation than a judicial ruling. Federal judges are expected to maintain dignity and provide legal reasoning - not make oddly informal remarks when dismissing First Amendment claims.
The tone feels entirely wrong for the gravity of the constitutional issues presented. When facing allegations of systematic religious speech suppression through unprecedented government-platform coordination, courts should apply established legal standards with appropriate judicial gravity.
This casual, perhaps sarcastic response to serious constitutional violations suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial role. Courts aren't supposed to be "flattered" by legal arguments - they're supposed to analyze them.
Copy-Paste "Analysis"
Even more troubling, the Court used identical language from a previous ruling, suggesting Tommy's current arguments weren't actually considered. Word-for-word repetition of earlier mischaracterizations indicates predetermined outcomes rather than careful legal review.
What This Means
This case involves systematic suppression of biblical religious expression through unprecedented coordination between the world's wealthiest individual (who simultaneously owns a major platform and exercises federal authority) and the President. These are serious constitutional questions that deserve serious legal analysis - not informal quips.
When courts rule before reviewing arguments, when inappropriate commentary replaces legal reasoning, and when identical language gets recycled between rulings, it undermines public confidence in judicial impartiality - the very foundation of our legal system.
The Path Forward
We've asked the Court to reconsider based on this clear procedural violation. Every American deserves to have their constitutional claims reviewed with appropriate judicial seriousness - not predetermined with casual dismissal.
The Fifth Circuit is also reviewing this pattern of judicial conduct through @tlthe5th's pending en banc petition. Whether addressing religious liberty, due process, or basic judicial dignity, our legal system only works when courts maintain appropriate standards.
The timeline proves what happened here. Court records confirm it: 12:22 PM ruling, 8:47 PM arguments. Eight hours apart. Now we'll see if it gets corrected.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/richards-v-x-corp/
No comments:
Post a Comment