The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Burning the Midnight Oil in the Northern District of Texas
"[A] little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man."
From Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.) yesterday in Richards v. X Corp.:
[Richards'] main argument [in his motion for reconsideration] hinges on the idea that the Court ceases work at 5:00 PM. Richards filed his second reply in support of his request for a temporary restraining order at 8:45 PM on August 5, 2025, and the Court's order, dated August 5, 2025, was docketed around noon on August 6, 2025. Richards insists this means the Court did not properly consider his second reply but had its outcome predetermined.
While the Court appreciates Richards's vision of confining the workday to an agreeable nine-to-five schedule, that is not the reality for the hard workers of the Northern District of Texas. Just as Richards himself filed his reply in the evening, so the Court was hard at work in the waning hours of the day—hence the order's next-day docket entry. {After all, "a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man." Proverbs 6:10–11.} And regardless, Richards is not entitled to multiple reply briefs. {See. Local Rule 7.1(f) ("Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, a party who has filed an opposed motion may file a reply brief within 14 days from the date the response is filed." (emphasis added)).} Therefore, the Court DENIES Richards's motion for reconsideration.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Judge Starr has guaranteed pay for life no matter how little he works.
I like the putdown, gentle but sharp.
Josh Blackman criticized a Boston judge for deciding a TRO "within a few hours", in his opinion too quickly to have properly considered the filings. I look forward to him applying that knowledge of judicial practice to this Dallas judge.
Apples and oranges. The other instance involved a 53-page complaint and a substantive ruling to enter a TRO. This involved a reply (10 pages or less, if local page limits were observed), where principal briefs would have already been long on file. The decision--to deny a motion for reconsideration of an issue already considered and resolved--is also much easier than a TRO.
Can we not with the Bible and other literature quotes by federal judges trying to sound wise and clever? If anything it does the opposite: it makes them look unprofessional and condescending.
This is TRUMP'S AMERICAN dammit and THE BIBLE WILL be included when applicable.
Or something like that.
Trump is the Pope too anyway: https://sl.bing.net/5x6SZAwwPQ
This areligious non-Trumpie non-wokie thinks the religious quotes are perfectly apropos and appreciates them. Do you also object to "Olympian" as a Greek gods religious reference, or Valhalla? Perhaps "enshrine" triggers you too.
I object to pretty much all literature references in judicial opinions specifically and legal writing generally. It’s just an excuse to make the writer seem worldly and clever.
And why should anyone expect judges to behave differently from anyone else? This is very low on my list of problems with the legal system. Judges are people too.
In general, when things cause nobody any actual harm but just feel irksome, maybe the problem is one gets irked by what other people do a little too often.
I mean it’s low on my priority list too, that’s why I’m anonymously commenting on a blog about it. Annoying things that aren’t earth shattering can still be commented on; that’s part of being human too.
Also I don’t think it’s necessarily harmless. Sometimes it can demean the seriousness of the case. Like if they’re doing movie references in criminal cases, as a reader I’m concerned they’re not taking things seriously.
Do you make similar complaints about judges who quote Shakespeare? Pop stars? When Judge Kazinski worked the titles of more than 200 movies into an opinion, people thought it was clever.
There’s a long tradition of quotes in judicial opinions. I don’t see the value of micromanaging other people’s writing styles. I don’t see why the Bible isn’t fair game, particularly passages like this. It’s not in any way a religious quote. It’s a general wisdom, folk-saying type quote.
This!
(Yet probably gushes when the Wise Latina or Justice Kagan turn a phrase to own the other side. But to be fair, Kagan is admirably clever.)
I actually find Kagan’s style kind of grating.
Thomas is usually the easiest read of anyone on the Court. I rarely agree with anything he says, and sometimes what he says isn’t relevant to the actual case because the analysis wasn’t called for. But as far as style goes, he’s overall nice and straightforward. Crisp and clear without trying to be clever or cute. Barrett’s not too bad.
“Do you make similar complaints about judges who quote Shakespeare? Pop stars? When Judge Kazinski worked the titles of more than 200 movies into an opinion, people thought it was clever.”
YES! I was literally complaining about this on here the other day lol.
“don’t see the value of micromanaging other people’s writing styles.”
It would be micromanaging if I was their boss. I’m not. I’m critiquing their writing style by saying it sucks.
Somebody should double check with Justice Kavanaugh about working hours I guess.