Plaintiff Thomas Richards submitted this motion for recusal to the court today. Now we sit tight and wait for the judge to respond. The motion actually goes to the judge himself. If he does not recuse himself though, we can appeal to the fifth circuit.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
THOMAS RICHARDS
Plaintiff,
v.
X Corp.
Defendant
Case No. 3:25-cv-916
Lisa Weingarten Richards, Esq.
VSB #96671
NY BAR #4932570
LWR Law Offices
11166 Fairfax Blvd. Suite 500 #1344
Fairfax, VA 22030
Tel.: (202) 981-2059
lwr@lwrlawoffices.com
Counsel for plaintiff
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF THE HONORABLE BRANTLEY D. STARR PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 455
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiff Thomas Richards, through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court for the
recusal of the Honorable Brantley D. Starr pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, as his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned given the documented pattern of procedural irregularities, structural
conflicts of interest, violations of Canon 2 and 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States
Judges, and selective application of judicial principles that contradict his well-established public
record of protecting religious expression.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The standard is objective - whether a
reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge's
impartiality. The appearance of impropriety is sufficient; actual bias need not be proven.
Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges mandates that judges "perform the
duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently." Canon 2 requires that judges
"act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary." Judge Starr's conduct has violated these fundamental requirements.
II. GROUNDS FOR RECUSAL
A. STRUCTURAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Political and Professional Entanglements
Trump Administration Alignment: As a Trump appointee presiding over a case
challenging a key Trump ally and major campaign contributor (Musk), while Musk
continues to advise the Trump administration and his companies hold billions in federal
contracts
Ken Paxton Connection: Judge Starr previously served as Deputy First Assistant
Attorney General under Ken Paxton, who has a documented pattern of using government
power to support Elon Musk's business interests, including investigations that federal
courts found constituted illegal retaliation.
2. Government Entanglement Issues
This case directly challenges Elon Musk's dual role as:
Owner/controller of X Corp. (the defendant)
Former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with his "scheduled
time as a Special Government Employee" having ended May 30, 2025
Continued commitment to assist President Trump a "day or two per week" for the
remainder of Trump's term (https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/28/elon-musk-trump
doge.html)
Recipient of at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits
over the past two decades, with $15.4 billion in current government contracts
(https://campaignlegal.org/update/musk-using-faa-benefit-himself-and-his-spacex
subsidiary-starlink and
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/elon-musk-business
government-contracts-funding/)
Paid approximately $300 million to support Trump's 2024 election campaign
While Trump appointees might theoretically maintain impartiality in such circumstances, the
specific facts here create an appearance of impropriety that violates judicial conduct standards. A
reasonable observer would question whether any judge can impartially adjudicate constitutional
challenges to a defendant who: (1) contributed $300 million to the appointing president's
campaign; (2) holds $15.4 billion in ongoing federal contracts; (3) continues as a presidential
advisor; and (4) owns the platform being challenged for censoring religious expression that this
particular judge has zealously protected in other contexts.
Yet the specific facts here are indeed much worse and foreclose the appearance of impartiality.
B. CONTRADICTORY APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES: THE
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PARADOX
Judge Starr's handling of this case stands in stark, inexplicable contrast to his demonstrated
judicial philosophy regarding religious expression, as evidenced by his decision in Carter v.
Transport Workers Union of America Local 556, 3:17-cv-02278, (N.D. Tex. Aug 07, 2023).
1. Southwest Airlines: Unprecedented Protection of Religious Expression
In Southwest Airlines, Judge Starr took extraordinary steps to protect religious expression:
Declared the Bible to be Truth: Judge Starr literally called the Bible "historical” truth"
in his judicial opinion Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America Local 556, 3:17-cv
02278, (N.D. Tex. Aug 07, 2023) ECF No. 467 at 2.
Ordered Religious Training: He mandated that Southwest Airlines provide religious
liberty training to employees - an order so extreme that the Fifth Circuit overturned it in
May 2025, finding it "exceeded remedial bounds and sought to punish Southwest's
attorneys" and that “Punitive sanctions exceed the scope of a federal court’s civil
contempt authority.” Carter v. Local 556, 23-10008, (5th Cir. May 08, 2025) ECF No.
243 at 60.
Willing to Be Overturned: Judge Starr was so committed to protecting religious
expression that he issued an order unprecedented in federal jurisprudence, fully aware it
risked appellate reversal
Ongoing Case: The Southwest Airlines case remains active, with the Fifth Circuit
recently reversing Starr's religious training order while upholding the underlying
religious discrimination judgment
2. Richards Case: Systematic Obstruction of Religious Expression
In direct contradiction to his Southwest Airlines approach, Judge Starr has systematically
obstructed Plaintiff Richards' religious expression claims through:
Procedural Warfare: Creating endless procedural barriers rather than addressing First
Amendment merits
False Choices: Offering the option to "file a motion to proceed without local counsel OR
appoint counsel," then denying the motion without explanation
Mischaracterization: Demonstrably false characterization of Plaintiff's legal arguments
(May 21, 2025 order)
Selective Assistance: Providing immediate help on trivial administrative matters while
ignoring emergency constitutional claims
3. The Inexplicable Contradiction
Judge Starr's willingness to risk appellate reversal to protect religious expression in Southwest
Airlines, contrasted with his systematic obstruction of religious expression claims in Richards,
can only be explained by factors outside his judicial philosophy regarding religious liberty. The
determining factor appears to be the political identity of the parties:
Southwest Airlines: Corporate defendant with no Trump administration connections →
Unprecedented protection for religious expression
Richards v. X Corp.: Challenge to Trump ally Elon Musk → Systematic obstruction of
identical religious expression claims
This pattern demonstrates that Judge Starr's publicly proclaimed religious convictions are
performative rather than genuine. A judge who truly believes in biblical principles would protect
religious expression consistently, not selectively based on political allegiances. The fact that
Judge Starr claims to be a Christian yet refuses to protect a fellow believer's biblical speech
when it conflicts with his political loyalties reveals that his religious liberty activism is merely
for show - to impress certain political constituencies rather than reflect sincere conviction. This
creates an appearance of bias that cannot be cured.
C. DOCUMENTED PATTERN OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES
The record establishes a clear "whack-a-mole" pattern of procedural obstruction designed to
avoid adjudicating constitutional merits:
1. Improper Venue Games
Misconstrued X Corp.'s Terms of Service to order improper transfer
Required $600 mandamus petition to correct obvious error
Immediately granted 90 days service time after mandamus pressure
2. Local Counsel Manipulation
Offered option to "file motion to proceed without local counsel"
Denied motion without explanation or guidance
Expanded geographic scope to all Texas, then contracted back to 50 miles
Mischaracterized Plaintiff's reconsideration arguments
3. Selective Judicial Assistance
Provided immediate assistance (within 24 hours) for trivial pro hac vice form corrections
Ignored emergency constitutional TRO motion for weeks
Denied emergency relief "without prejudice" based on false venue claims
4. Systematic Avoidance of Constitutional Merits
Never substantively addressed Plaintiff's First Amendment claims
Uses procedural mechanisms as pretexts to avoid politically sensitive constitutional
questions
Creates conditions designed to force technical dismissal rather than merits adjudication
D. APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IS UNFIXABLE
The contradiction between Judge Starr's Southwest Airlines religious liberty activism and his
Richards obstruction creates an appearance of political bias that cannot be cured through any
procedural safeguards. When a judge's application of identical legal principles depends entirely
on the political alignment of the parties, recusal is the only remedy that can restore public
confidence in judicial impartiality.
III. SPECIFIC INSTANCES DEMONSTRATING BIAS
1. The "False OR" Deception (May 14-15, 2025)
Court order: "appoint local counsel OR file a motion to proceed without local counsel"
When Plaintiff chose the second option, Court denied without explanation.
Demonstrates bad faith in offering procedural choices the Court had no intention of
honoring
2. Demonstrably False Order (May 21, 2025)
Court claimed Plaintiff "objects to the Court's expansion of local counsel to any attorney
in Texas".
Plaintiff's actual argument: expansion demonstrated the arbitrary nature of the
requirement
Such mischaracterization in a judicial order suggests inability to fairly evaluate Plaintiff's
arguments.
3. Emergency Relief Denial Pattern
Denied initial TRO/preliminary injunction based on Judge Starr’s false venue claims
(venue transfer later vacated)
Denied renewed emergency TRO "without prejudice" for unstated reasons
Has never addressed the substantive First Amendment violations despite their emergency
nature
IV. CONCLUSION
Judge Starr's documented willingness to risk appellate reversal to protect religious expression in
Southwest Airlines, contrasted with his systematic obstruction of identical claims in Richards v.
X Corp., establishes that his judicial decision-making is driven by political loyalty rather than
consistent legal principles. His conduct has violated Canon 2 and Canon 3 of the Code of
Conduct for United States Judges, undermining public confidence in judicial impartiality and
competence.
The appearance of impropriety created by this contradiction, combined with the structural
conflicts arising from his prior employment under Ken Paxton and the defendant's massive
financial relationship with the Trump administration, requires recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
The pattern of procedural irregularities documented in Plaintiff's recent mandamus petition
demonstrates that Judge Starr cannot provide the fair adjudication that Plaintiff's constitutional
claims deserve. The contrast is particularly stark: a judge who will risk appellate reversal to
protect religious expression when no political interests are at stake but will create endless
procedural barriers to avoid adjudicating identical claims when they challenge a major Trump
supporter and financial backer.
Given that Plaintiff has now secured local counsel (albeit at an expense and to comply with
docket appearance purposes), this motion focuses primarily on the appearance of bias requiring
reassignment. The pattern of Canon 2 and 3 violations and systematic obstruction of
constitutional claims necessitates recusal to restore public confidence in the impartial
administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
1. Grant this Motion for Recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a);
2. Reassign this case to another judge in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division;
3. Vacate the Court's prior Orders denying Plaintiff's renewed emergency temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction motions (Docs. 10, 29) without prejudice to
allow the newly assigned judge to consider said motions on their merits;
4. Direct that any newly assigned judge consider Plaintiff's constitutional claims and all
motions (including those revived by vacation of prior orders) without prejudice to their
substance; and
5. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Weingarten Richards
VSB #96671
NY BAR #4932570
LWR Law Offices
11166 Fairfax Blvd. Suite 500 #1344
Fairfax, VA 22030
Tel.: (202) 981-2059
lwr@lwrlawoffices.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
DATE: June 2, 2025
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 2, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
electronically transmitted to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing, and was
transmitted to Defendant's counsel via ECF.
/s/ Lisa Weingarten Richards
Lisa Weingarten Richards
