Kacsmaryk dis- hon

---

leo teneo??! nope mizelle

see judge shopping paxton universal injunction

SEE MCCONNELL STACK PACK

---

For the Fifth Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice> (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)

---

In June 2023, Illinois governor JB Pritzker signed a bill intended to discourage forum shopping by requiring that any lawsuits challenging the constitutionally of a state law be filed in one of two counties, either Sangamon County where the state capital of Springfield is located, or Cook County, the state's most populous county and home to multiple state offices in Chicago.^[10]

In March 2024, the Judicial Conference of the United States announced a policy against "judge shopping" for cases seeking a nationwide injunction or related relief.^[11][12] "Judge shopping" in this context refers to forum shopping in which a litigant files in a local division of a district court where one or two judges are assigned nearly all cases (such as the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas or the Waco division of the Western District of Texas) rather than in a larger division with multiple judges. }:}:

Under the new policy, the Judicial Conference said that district courts should randomly assign any civil case seeking nationwide or statewide relief to any judge within the district. But the Judicial Conference policy is merely a recommendation and is not binding; on March 29, 2024, the Northern District of Texas, home to two judges frequently sought out by conservative litigants, announced that it would not adopt the Judicial Conference's recommendations.^[13]}:

...

---

an 5 25

In a Thursday, May 29 post on X, formerly Twitter, President Donald Trump's White House adviser, Stephen Miller, angrily wrote, "We are living under a judicial tyranny." Miller's post was in response to a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that blocks — at least temporarily — most of the tariffs Trump is imposing on the United States' trading partners.

But Miller isn't the only MAGA Republican who is using the phrase "judicial tyranny" to attack federal judges who are blocking Trump's executive orders. Trump and his MAGA allies, from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Vice President JD Vance, claim that federal courts are failing to respect the president's executive powers — and Trump's critics are responding that in fact, the courts are playing the role they are supposed to play in the United States' system of checks and balances.

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on May 30, attorney Paul Rosenzweig — a former U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official — lays out the flaws and contradictions of the "judicial tyranny" arguments coming from Trump and his MAGA allies.

"Trump wants you to think that he is the victim of district court judges gone crazy enjoining his actions," Rosenzweig explains. "To make that case, he also wants you to think that what is happening to him is the same thing that happened to (former President Joe) Biden's policies — district court judges interfering with executive prerogative. But that's just not the case. And diving into the facts makes it clear that this argument really isn't about universal injunctions — cases where a district court judge grants interim equitable relief that applies across the entire country

IFrame Content

Rosenzweig continues, " The argument is really about forum-shopping and judicial gerrymandering…. The facts on the ground are that the universal injunctions against Trump are truly universal. As of today, more than 20 different federal district court judges have issued injunctive relief in at least 180 different cases. And the number goes up with every passing day. There is no good evidence that Trump's opponents are forum-shopping — bringing cases before courts where there is the greatest expectation of having judges who will rule in their favor."

MAGA Republicans, Rosenzweig stresses, have a long history of seeking "universal injunctions" against Democratic policies they don't like — including far-right Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

"By March 2023," the former DHS official observes, "Paxton's office had filed 28 lawsuits against the Biden Administration in federal district courts in Texas; of those, 18 were filed in single-judge divisions, including Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's division and a single-judge division held by another Trump appointee, Judge Drew Tipton…. In a world in which we could have confidence in the good faith of an administration and a presumption as to its regularity of operation, universal injunctions would be a little-used safety-valve check on executive authority. But today, we live in a different world — one where MAGA gamesmanship and judicial forum-shopping were instrumental in frustrating various Biden initiatives."

Rosenzweig adds, "Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it seems quite possible that the Court will depower judicial opposition in the service of conservative policy."

*Paul Rosenzweig's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

---

===

slate

no lnx

On Wednesday, Sen. Mitch McConnell announced that he will not seek another term as leader of the Senate Republicans, stepping down from the post (though not his seat) in January 2025. McConnell will leave a legacy of extreme obstruction, having pioneered new ways to paralyze the upper chamber in an effort to stymie Democratic legislation. He also regularly kowtowed to Donald Trump, even voting to acquit the former president following his impeachment trial over the Jan. 6 insurrection. But McConnell’s most indelible mark on history is likely to be his fixation on stacking the courts with far-right ideologues, thus fundamentally refashioning the federal judiciary in the image of the modern Republican Party.

On a new episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the wrecking ball that McConnell took to the independent federal judiciary and its enduring impact on American democracy and civil rights. Their conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Dahlia Lithwick: Can we talk about Mitch McConnell for a minute? He announced that he’s stepping down as the leader of Senate Republicans in the near future.

Mark Joseph Stern: What was your first reaction when you heard the news?

My first reaction was that I hate this timeline so much. It’s the timeline where we have to miss Rep. Kevin McCarthy because the person who followed him was, as sure as night follows day, vastly crazier. That’s how I feel about McConnell. This is the person who singlehandedly did more to destroy Senate norms of comity and respect, to help Donald Trump evade accountability, and to steal and pack the Supreme Court with people who should not be sitting on the court. And still, in this moment, we’re going to have to thank him for respecting the vestigial norms that he did and not being an utter sociopath each and every day. Because the person who follows him will be worse.

I’ll add that, in my view, no one has done more to destroy the federal judiciary than Mitch McConnell. This is the guy who, under Obama, decided to block as many judicial nominations as possible, for no reason other than to leave the seats open so Trump could come in and fill them. This is the guy who violated every known norm to hold open Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat, ostensibly because it came open in an election year, only to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat when people were already voting in the 2020 election. I think he made a lot of Americans wake up and realize that this was all Calvinball, that he had no principles to begin with.

But even more than that, Mitch McConnell was the guy who realized you don’t need to win elections to enact Republican policy. You don’t need to change hearts and minds. You don’t need to push ballot initiatives or win over the views of the people. All you have to do is stack the courts. You only need 51 votes in the Senate to stack the courts with far-right partisan activists like Aileen Cannon and Matthew Kacsmaryk. And they will enact Republican policies under the guise of judicial review, policies that could never pass through the democratic process. And those policies will be bulletproof, because they will be called “law,” and Democrats will need at least a century to win back the courts.

Anyone who believes in an independent judiciary with any integrity should loathe McConnell to their bones.

I want to add that McConnell, for so many reasons, stands out as somebody who knew exactly who Donald Trump was, exactly what happened on Jan. 6, exactly what his responsibility was in that moment. And he didn’t do it. He normalized the idea that you can mumble stuff and do nothing. Then we all live with the consequences. He made it easier for whoever follows him to do even less. And now he’s being praised as some elder statesman? Really? He’s totally morally bankrupt. The only silver lining, Mark, is that whoever follows him will not be as good as him at this crap.

Related From Slate

Jim Newell

Why Mitch McConnell Is Really Stepping Down in November

I agree. Under Trump, McConnell built the most impressive and efficient judicial confirmation machine ever seen. He really helped to keep the broader Republican Party and conservative movement behind Trump by saying, “don’t worry, we’re still getting all the right judges!” He pushed them through at a record clip. Aileen Cannon, the judge thwarting Trump’s trial over the Mar-a-Lago documents, was confirmed after the 2020 election, when Trump had already lost! This went on right up until the end. And I don’t think his successor will match those heights, even if he or she isn’t quite as loony as we’re speculating. Think about how much Joe Biden and his team have struggled to match the number of confirmations that Trump and McConnell achieved. They can’t do it. We may have passed peak efficiency for judicial confirmations under any president.

But is that anything to celebrate? McConnell’s successor will still scrape and strive to get crazy people on the bench. And sure, they might get 20 percent fewer judges through, because they won’t have the same ruthless efficiency. But Republicans will take that deal, because it only takes one insane district court judge to thwart an entire presidency.

---

an 3 24

Earlier this week, CNN reported that the Judicial Conference of the United States announced a new rule that would that would shut down "judge shopping" — a tactic conservative attorneys general and conservative litigants have used to file challenges against liberal policies and laws.

The new policy requires federal district courts to "randomly assign a judge to a lawsuit if the suit aims to block any federal or state law, executive order or regulation," the Hill reports.

"I’m really proud that we did this," 6th Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton said in response to the announcement.

However, according to the Associated Press, two days later, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) condemned the move "on the Senate floor and joined with two other GOP senators to send letters to a dozen chief judges around the country suggesting they" ignore it.

In a Sunday, March 17 op-ed published by MSNBC, University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck points out the hypocrisy in not only McConnell's — but US Senator John Cornyn's (R-TX) and Thom Tillis' (R-NC) — opposition to the rule, too.

"So why are these three Republican senators so upset by the proposed reform?" Vladeck asks. "The answer is obvious: because it will make it harder to guarantee that specific judges will hear specific lawsuits — whether individual Republican appointees hearing challenges to Democratic policies, or vice versa."

Vladeck writes:

Plaintiffs have increasingly taken advantage of these 'single-judge' divisions to steer nationwide federal policy challenges to specific, ideologically sympathetic judges. For example, the nationwide challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone (one of two drugs used in the most common and safest abortion procedure) was filed in Amarillo, Texas — not a courthouse with any specific connection to mifepristone, but one in which it had a 100% chance of being assigned to a certain Trump-appointed district judge, former anti-abortion advocate Matthew Kacsmaryk. Kacsmaryk remarkably, if predictably, ruled against the FDA’s approval of the drug — an approval that occurred 23 years ago.

Another example the Just Security blog co-founder notes:

A nationwide challenge to Biden administration efforts to combat social media disinformation was filed in Monroe, Louisiana — where it had a 100% chance of being assigned to Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty. And the state of Texas, which has filed 37 different lawsuits in Texas district courts challenging Biden administration policies*, has filed a majority of them in single-judge divisions — and none in Austin (where the Texas government is actually located) or Houston or Dallas or … you get the point.

Vladeck emphasizes, "The charge from McConnell, Cornyn and Tillis that the Judicial Conference is engaged in 'partisan' behavior rings more than a little hypocritical. The whole point of the proposal is to reduce the appearance of partisanship on the part of the federal courts."

READ MORE:[GOP represents 'most significant threat to basic constitutionalism since Civil War': historian

*Vladeck's full op-ed is available [at this link.]

---

8 23?

Judge in Abortion Pill Case Didn’t Disclose Interview Disparaging LGBTQ People

Kacsmaryk went on Christian talk radio twice in 2014 to spread bunk conspiracy theories about LGBTQ people.

By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT

---

xian legal shop set up in tx city b/c he only judge amarillo? feeds into friendly 5th circuit

---

https://www.alternet.org/trump-2660590350/

bankrupt planned parenthood?!

---

an raw 5 23 thom h

no lnx

you’ve probably never heard of Anthony Comstock, a Civil War Union soldier and New York Postmaster, who died in 1915. You need to learn about him and his legacy, however, as his long fingers are about to reach up out of the grave and wrap themselves around the necks of every American woman of childbearing years.

Anthony Comstock was a mama’s boy who hated sex. His mother died when he was 10 years old and the shock apparently never left him; women who didn’t live up to her ideal were his open and declared enemies, as were pornography, masturbation, and abortion. He was so ignorant of sex and reproduction that he believed a visible human-like fetus developed “within seconds” of sexual intercourse.

Comstock spent decades scouring the country collecting pornography, which he enthusiastically shared with men in Congress, and harassing “loose women.” For example, when he visited a belly-dancing show (then a new craze) in Chicago at the Cairo Theatre during the World’s Fair of 1893, he demanded the show be shut down.

As Amy Sohn, who wrote a brilliant Comstock biography titled The Man Who Hated Women, noted:

“Despite national controversy and Comstock’s intervention, ultimately the only alteration made to the fair’s belly dancing was costuming: the dancers swapped their gauze blouses for thin woolen undershirts. The vice hunter had lost in Chicago. But he would not forget the dancers, and would have four of them arrested and fined when they came to New York that winter. New York, after all, was Comstockland.”

Comstock lobbied for and shepherded through Congress a law passed on March 3, 1873 titled “An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, obscene Literature and Articles of immoral Use.” Today we refer to it as the Comstock Act.

Its language with regard to abortion is not at all ambiguous:

“Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance … designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and

“Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

“Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

“Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

“Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing—

“Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.” (emphasis mine)

The penalty is also not ambiguous. Persons mailing information about abortion, or drugs or devices to produce an abortion:

“[S]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.”

The Biden administration argues that the Comstock Act of 1873 was set aside almost a century ago.

And, indeed, in 1930, the Appeals Court for the Second Circuit ruled in Youngs Rubber Corp. v. C.I. Lee & Co that the law couldn’t apply to things sent through the mail that are legal, even if they were illegal at the time of the passage of the Comstock Act. (The case involved condoms manufactured by Youngs Rubber.)

“Such a construction,” the court wrote, “would prevent mailing to or by a physician of any drug or mechanical device ‘adapted’ for contraceptive or abortifacient uses, although the physician desired to use or to prescribe it for proper medical purposes.”

The law has been amended by Congress four times (in 1955, 1958, 1971, and 1994), but the language above was never struck because legislators figured the appeals court’s ruling rendered it nugatory.

But don’t tell that to Trump’s appointee Texas District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo, who ruled last month that Mifepristone was to be banned nationwide: he based a large part of his decision on the plain language of the Comstock Act.

And don’t tell it to the three rightwing judges hearing an appeal this week of Kacsmaryk’s decision before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

When the Biden administration’s attorney argued that Kacsmaryk’s decision was “unprecedented,”Circuit Judge James Ho — also a Trump appointee, who personally swore his good friend Kacsmaryk into his office — interrupted her with a curt snap, saying:

“I guess I’m just wondering why not just focus on the facts of this case rather than have this sort of ‘FDA can do no wrong’ theme.”

The appeals court, made up of a George W. Bush appointee and two Trump appointees, earlier had ruled in their preliminary finding to hear the case that they disagreed with the Biden administration’s assertion that, to quote the three judges, “the [Comstock] law does not mean what it says it means.”

When the Biden interpretation of the Comstock Act was brought up in oral arguments, the Bush appointee, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, said there is “some disagreement” about whether previous court rulings actually invalidated the law.

Republican members of Congress agree, and want the Comstock Act enforced nationwide.

In a letter sent to CVS (among other pharmacy chains), Mississippi Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith and eight other Republican senators (Lankford, Daines, Braun, Rubio, Marshall, Risch, Crapo and Blackburn) wrote that the Biden interpretation (and that of Congress in 1955, 1958, 1971, and 1994) is wrong.

“We write to express our support and agreement with 21 State Attorneys General,” they wrote “who have reminded you that Federal law in 18 U.S.C. 1461-1462 [the Comstock Act] criminalizes nationwide using the mail, or interstate shipment by any express company or common carrier, to send or receive any drug that is ‘designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.’”

The 1930 court ruling that lawmakers and judges had, for over 90 years, believed only applied the Comstock Act to items that were illegal (like child porn), she wrote:

“[D]oes not protect CVS or any other individual or entity from being prosecuted within the five-year statute of limitations for the illegal mailing or interstate shipment of abortion drugs … even for conduct that occurs today.”

The lawyer for Republicans defending Kacsmaryk’s ruling before the Fifth Circuit, Erin Hawley (the wife of Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley), went so far as to assert before the court that even physicians and pharmacies shouldn’t be able to receive Mifipristone or other drugs that could produce an abortion via the mail, FedEx, or UPS:

“What the Comstock law says is that it is improper to mail things that induce or cause abortions, which is precisely the action the FDA took in 2021 when it permitted the mailing of abortion drugs.”

If Hawley’s interpretation is ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court, all abortions in the United States would be ended when drugs and suction and surgical devices designed specifically for the procedure can no longer be shipped to hospitals, clinics, or physicians’ offices.

And this is no idle threat.

Given how all three judges on the Fifth Circuit reacted to this week’s arguments, most court observers believe they’ll vote to sustain Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling and ban Mifipristone nationwide, perhaps even outlawing its legal shipment to pharmacies for other uses like helping with incomplete miscarriages.

Other drugs and surgical devices used for abortions are almost certainly next.

As Washington Post reporter Dan Diamond wrote for his Substack newsletter, anti-abortion activist Mark Lee Dickson, who’s helped several cities around the country put into law local versions of the Comstock Act, told him:

“If a future president were to enforce these federal statutes, then they could shut down every abortion facility in America.”

Such a ruling by the Fifth Circuit will kick the whole mess up to the Supreme Court, where six hardcore rightwing Catholics (Gorsuch attends his wife’s church but was raised Catholic) are gleefully rubbing their hands in anticipation.

This battle promises to be long and hard-fought, and if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Fifth Circuit’s anticipated decision the only solution will be for Congress to overturn the Comstock Act itself.

And that’s unlikely to happen unless or until Democrats can take back the House, hold the White House, and gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in the 2024 election. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Several states are now stockpiling Mifipristone in anticipation of just such a dystopian outcome. Families with women and girls of childbearing age may want to do the same.

Forewarned is forearmed.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

President Joe Biden should 'forcefully resist' TX judge’s 'medically unsound' abortion pill ruling: columnist ›

Texas judge overseeing abortion pill case filed by Josh Hawley's wife donated to his Senate campaign: report ›

The abortion pill, abortion bans and Republican policies that kill ›

texas judge procrastinates on releasing date of first medication abortion hearing to the public: report

Maya Boddie

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the "most lawless jurist" who could potentially ban medication abortion nationwide in the coming weeks, delayed releasing the date of the first hearing to...

---

an badash

Matthew Kacsmaryk, a judge appointed by former President Donald Trump, is expected to rule soon whether to nationally outlaw the abortion medication Mifepristone, effectively overturning the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 23-year-old approval of the drug.

The lawsuit against the drug, filed by the right-wing Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), disingenuously claims that the FDA carelessly risked patients lives when it approved the drug in 2000.

On the contrary, only 24 people taking the drug died from 2000 to 2018 (out of its estimated 3.7 million users). As such, it’s safer than penicillin, Tylenol, and actual childbirth, which kills 700 U.S. women a year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

The ADF likely chose to file their case in Kacsmaryk’s Texas-based courtroom because he’s known as a right-wing Christian activist who happily issues wide-ranging pro-conservative rulings. He recently ruled that Texas teens have no right to access abortion without parental consent.

The ADF’s lawsuit also follows the FDA’s recent approval of pharmacies to distribute the drug without a doctor’s visit. Medications like Mifepristone are now used for over half of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, something that happened in response to several conservative states banning clinical abortions.

If Kacsmaryk rules against the drug, it would outlaw the drug even in states where abortion remains legal.

After the Supreme Court overturned *Roe v. Wade* and its rights to legalized abortion in June 2022, conservative politicians said they wanted to return the issue of abortion to individualized states. However, voters ever since have consistently rejected attempts to further restrict abortion access.

Now, it seems conservatives are moving from letting states decide to letting one un-elected judge decide for the entire country.

This week, four senators introduced a bill to codify abrtion rights and contraceptive access into law. The bill, named the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, was introduced by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The bill is unlikely to pass the Republican-led House.

---

an 2 23

Texas federal judge could soon ban medical abortions in all 50 states — and the Supreme Court might let him, Slate reports.

Slate reporters Dalia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explain how conservative Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump, could get away with outlawing mifepristone, "the first drug taken in the two-drug medication abortion protocol approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)."

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade last June, Lithwick and Stern write that instead of "undergoing a procedure at a clinic," many patients use pills to "terminate their pregnancies," considering "medication abortions are 18 times safer than childbirth, very reliable, and easy to access."

Anti-abortion abortion filed a lawsuit with the help of the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, with the intent to get the "case" in the hands of perhaps "the most lawless jurist in the country" — Kacsmaryk.

Lithwick and Stern write:

In less than three years, Kacsmaryk has seized control over border policy, repeatedly defied the Supreme Court’s decision protecting LGBTQ employees, and restricted minors’ access to birth control

The journalists point out three massive flaws in the case:

First, none of the plaintiffs "have a remotely plausible claim to standing," or "ability to sue in federal court.**" And in order to do so, they would need to prove that the FDA’s approval of mifepristone "injures them personally."

Second, the "substantive arguments are ridiculous," L:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}::{ithwick and Stern write.

The plaintiffs assert that the FDA approved mifepristone, 23 years ago, while "ignoring potential adverse reactions" — in other words — "disputing the conclusions of the agency’s scientists."

Lastly, according to Lithwick and Stern, a federal judge has never banned a drug "by wholly revoking FDA approval." If mifepristone is banned in every state, doctors will no longer be able to prescribe the medication. The journalists argue that, since "a majority of patients use abortion pills," this would lead to chaos for healthcare providers --- "creating monthslong waitlists for abortion procedures even in deep-blue states."

Even with these three glaring flaws, "the actual, enduring problem," Lithwick and Stern write is that the lawsuit "stands a significant chance at succeeding."

They write:

The very weakness of this litigation — the lack of real standing, the blunderbuss attack on federal agencies, the extraordinary scope of the relief sought — are the seeds that have been planted by this newly constituted Supreme Court supermajority coming to fruition. The conservative justices have already brushed away standing requirements in order to weaken civil rights laws; severely weakened the EPA and the CDC; and let rogue judges seize power from the Biden administration.

Lithwick and Stern assert that perhaps the overturning of Roe v. Wade "was not the terminal point" in the attack on women' reproductive rights, but, instead, "barely even the start."

---

https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/every-senate-republican-but-one-just-voted-to-confirm-a-bigot-to-serve-as-federal-judge-for-life/

Republican Senate has confirmed, 52 to 46, Donald Trump’s judicial nominee who in the past spewed anti-LGBTQ garbage that would make anti-gay Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis proud—we know this because he actually supported her when she was denying marriage licenses to gay couples. The Washington Post reported, “Just one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins, joined every voting Democrat to oppose Matthew Kacsmaryk’s lifetime appointment to the federal bench in the Northern District of Texas.”

An avalanche of 75 LGBTQ groups and allied organizations had opposed Kacsmaryk’s nomination, citing his personal writings, in which he made no secret of his “antipathy toward legal equality for LGBT people,” claiming transgender people have a “mental disorder,” as well as calling homosexuality “disordered.” In defending Davis, Kacsmaryk had compared her “to Quakers who refuse fight in war and Jewish butchers who follow kosher dietary laws.”

“Our concern is not just about Mr. Kacsmaryk’s extremist views and willingness to gut landmark decisions that form the basis of all protection for LGBT people,” the groups, including the National Center for Transgender Equality and Lambda Legal, had written to senators. “Our concern goes further than that. Mr. Kacsmaryk has been nominated to the Northern District of Texas, which has long been a favorite of those seeking injunctions against LGBT laws and policy.”

The damage he causes could be expansive. “Kacsmaryk has also opposed reproductive rights,” Think Progress reported, “arguing against a Washington state law to require pharmacies to provide emergency contraception and fighting against the contraceptive mandate in the ACA. He said lawsuits fighting the mandate would ‘protect innocent life from conception to natural death.’”

At just 42 years old, this bigot could be on the bench for decades. “As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great Nation,” Trump said last month, “let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.” But LGBTQ people here in America? Tough luck.

---

atthew Joseph Kacsmaryk (born 1977) is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated to the position by President Donald Trump.

Education and career[

Kacsmaryk received his Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, from Abilene Christian University in 1999 and his Juris Doctor with honors from the University of Texas School of Law in 2003.^[1]

From 2003 to 2008, he was an associate in the Dallas office of Baker Botts, where he focused on commercial, constitutional, and intellectual property litigation. From 2008 through 2013, he was an assistant United States attorney in the Northern District of Texas where he was lead counsel in over 75 criminal appeals and co-counsel in high-profile criminal and terrorism trials.^[1] In 2013, Kacsmaryk received the attorney general's award for excellence in furthering the interests of U.S. national security for his work in United States v. Aldawsari.^[2] He was deputy general counsel to First Liberty Institute. ^[3] He has been a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Federalist Society since 2012.^[3] He has been a member of the red mass committee for the Roman Catholic diocese of Ft. Worth.^[3]

Federal judicial service:

On September 7, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Kacsmaryk to serve as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the seat vacated by judge Mary Lou Robinson, who assumed senior status on February 3, 2016.^[4] On December 13, 2017, a hearing on his nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee.^[5] On January 3, 2018, his nomination was returned to the president under Rule XXXI, Paragraph 6 of the United States Senate.^[6] On January 5, 2018, Trump announced his intent to renominate Kacsmaryk to a federal judgeship.^[7] On January 8, 2018, his renomination was sent to the Senate.^[8] On January 18, 2018, his nomination was reported out of committee by an 11–10 vote.^[9]

The American Bar Association rated Kacsmaryk "qualified" for the nomination.^[10] However, Senate Democrats and a number of LGBT advocacy groups opposed his nomination due to his writings and comments on LGBT rights and women's contraceptive rights.^[11][12] He has worked on cases opposing certain LGBT protections in housing, employment, and health care.^[13] He has referred to homosexuality as "disordered",^[14] and to being transgender as a "delusion" and a "mental disorder".^[13] He opposed the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in the United States.^[10][13]

On January 3, 2019, his nomination was returned to Trump under Rule XXXI, Paragraph 6 of the United States Senate. On January 23, 2019, Trump announced his intent to renominate Kacsmaryk for a federal judgeship.^[15] His nomination was sent to the Senate later that day.^[16] On February 7, 2019, his nomination was reported out of committee by a 12–10 vote.^[17] On June 18, 2019, the Senate voted 52–44 to invoke cloture on his nomination.^[18] On June 19, 2019, his nomination was confirmed by a 52–46 vote.^[14][19][20] He received his judicial commission on June 21, 2019.^[21]

Kacsmaryk serves the Amarillo division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which encompasses 26 counties in the Texas Panhandle.^[22]

Notable cases[

In 2021, Kacsmaryk ordered the reinstatement of a Trump administration policy that required that asylum seekers wait outside U.S. territory while their claims are processed. In his order, he said that the Biden administration had ended the policy without fully considering the consequences.^[23] His decision was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 30, 2022.^[24]

In November 2022, Kacsmaryk ruled that the Biden administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act while misinterpreting the Affordable Care Act to enforce the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity within "on the basis of sex".^[25]

Also in 2022, Kacsmaryk vacated protections for transgender workers enacted by the Biden administration, citing Bostock v. Clayton County saying that Title VII "prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for being gay or transgender, "but not necessarily [in the case of] all correlated conduct."^[26][27]

In 2023, Kacsmaryk was assigned the case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration that challenged FDA approval of mifepristone, a common form of medication abortion.^[28] Allegations of forum shopping by the case's litigants have been noted in reporting of the case.^[29]

Personal life[

Kacsmaryk is married and has five children.^[30]

References

One of the better-known Red Masses is the one celebrated each fall at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C. on the Sunday before the first Monday in October (the Supreme Court convenes on the first Monday in October). It is sponsored by the John Carroll Society and attended by some Supreme Court justices, members of Congress, the diplomatic corps, the Cabinet and other government departments and sometimes the President of the United States. Each year, at the Brunch following the Red Mass, the Society confers its Pro Bono Legal Service Awards to thank lawyers and law firms that have provided outstanding service.^[1]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was Jewish, used to attend the Red Mass with her Christian colleagues earlier in her tenure on the Court, but later stopped attending due to her objection to the use of images of aborted fetuses during a homily opposing abortion.^[7]

The first Red Mass in the United States was celebrated at Saints Peter and Paul Church (Detroit) in 1877, under the auspices of what is now the University of Detroit Mercy. The tradition was resumed in 1912, and has been held annually since.^[8] This Red Mass is the oldest continuously held in the United States. The better-known Red Mass in New York was first celebrated in 1928.^[9] The first Red Mass in Boston was celebrated on October 4, 1941 at Immaculate Conception Church under the auspices of Boston College.^[5] A Red Mass is also celebrated at St. Joseph's Cathedral in the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire,^[10] at the University of San Diego, and at the Basilica of the Assumption in the Archdiocese of Baltimore.^[11] A Red Mass was first observed in Washington, D.C. in 1939 at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It continued as an annual event there under the auspices of the law school of the Catholic University of America. It was held in January to coincide with the opening of Congress. In 1953 it was moved to St. Matthew's Cathedral, but continued to be held at the beginning of the year until 1977.^[12] The University of Notre Dame ordinarily celebrates a Red Mass in the Basilica of the Sacred Heart each fall semester, at which the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend typically presides.

---

reason mag 3 23

Back in the day, most local newspapers hired reporters who covered the dealings in local courts. Alas, with budget cuts, those positions have gone by the wayside. It is very rare indeed for the national media to care at all what happens in small-town courts. Of course, the single-judge divisions have recently become topics of national concern. And the judge du jour is Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas. The Washington Post flew an entire team of reporters to Amarillo, and also interviewed nearly two dozen people (present company included). On balance, I thought the profile was fair, and conveyed an accurate image of Judge Kacsmaryk.

However, not everyone holds Judge Kacsmaryk in such high esteem. In Texas legal circles, it is well known that the never-ending stream of commentary about Judge Kacsmaryk has triggered a never-ending stream of death threats—and not just against the judge, but also threats against the judge's staff. Every time Ian Millhiser or Mark Joseph Stern or Ron Wyden invokes Judge Kacsmaryk's name, the switchboard lights up with threats. Perry Bacon of the Washington Post wrote that any threats of violence go with the job. I think we should not forget that someone nearly assassinated Justice Kavanaugh to prevent his vote in Dobbs.

At present, a motion for a preliminary injunction is pending before Judge Kacsmaryk. There is no requirement for a court to hold oral argument. Judges routinely decide motions on the papers. Courts can also submit interrogatories to the parties to resolve any questions. But Judge Kacsmaryk decided to schedule oral argument on the motion. He could have simply set the matter for argument on Zoom. Many judges have now moved almost entirely to Zoom oral argument. I do not think any of these judges can credibly cite COVID as a justification for Zoom arguments. The primary rationale, I suspect, is convenience. Zoom can be easier for the judge, court staff, and the parties. But not all judges favor Zoom hearings. There is much lost when everyone is reduced to a small square. So it seems that Judge Kacsmaryk thought it beneficial to hold the PI hearing in his Amarillo courthouse.

What happened next is the story of national headlines. Today the Washington Post published an article titled, "In an unusual move, judge delays public notice of abortion-pill hearing." Here is a snippet:

The Texas judge who could undo government approval of a key abortion drug has scheduled the first hearing in the case for Wednesday but took unusual steps to keep it from being publicized, according to people familiar with the plans.

The hearing will be an opportunity for lawyers for the Justice Department, the company that makes the drug and the conservative group that is challenging it to argue their positions before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. After they do, the judge could rule at any time, potentially upending access to medication abortions across the country.

Kacsmaryk held a conference call with attorneys Friday to schedule Wednesday's hearing in Amarillo, Texas, said multiple people familiar with the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. Normally, such a hearing would be quickly placed on the public court docket, where anyone tracking the case online could see it. But Kacsmaryk said he would delay putting the hearing on the docket until late Tuesday to try to minimize disruptions and possible protests, and asked the lawyers on the call not to share information about it before then, the people said.

Public access to federal court proceedings is a key principle of the American judicial system, and Kacsmaryk's apparent delay in placing the hearing on the docket is highly unusual. The judge and his staff did not respond to emails requesting comment on Saturday evening. . . .

Attorneys on the planning call with Kacsmaryk on Friday included representatives from the Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed the lawsuit; the Justice Department, which represents the FDA; and the drug company that makes mifepristone. Representatives for each declined to comment or did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday evening.

Kacsmaryk told the attorneys that he also wanted to delay publicizing the hearing because courthouse members have received threats in the wake of the lawsuit, according to the people familiar with the call. Several people close to Kacsmaryk say the judge and his family have faced security threats since he ascended to the federal bench in 2019, and those threats have intensified ahead of the abortion pill ruling. . . .

By waiting to publicize the time of the hearing, Kacsmaryk and his staff could make it difficult for the public, the media and others to travel to the courthouse in Amarillo, Tex. The rural, deeply conservative city has few direct flights except from Dallas or San Antonio and is at least a four-hour drive from any of the state's major, heavily-Democratic cities. Still, over 150 abortion rights advocates gathered there on a Saturday in mid-February to voice their support for abortion pills.

I think there are three distinct issues to consider here. First, was it appropriate for Judge Kacsmaryk to delay public notice about the hearing? Second, was it appropriate for someone to reveal that information to the Washington Post? Third, if Judge Kacsmaryk's decision was appropriate, but the revealing of the information was not appropriate, what are the potential repercussions?

Our system of laws has long disfavored secret hearings. The experiences from the clandestine Star Chamber inspired the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a right to a "speedy and public trial." The courts have long held that the public has a presumptive right to attend criminal hearings. And there is similar caselaw concerning civil proceedings. None of those precedents are directly implicated here. Judge Kacsmaryk fully intended to hold his hearing in public.And he planned to provide notice for the hearing the night before.

the question is whether the decision to delay posting public notice about the hearing itself was not appropriate. The Post only called the decision "unusual." No expert is quoted to explain why the step was "unusual". (No, I don't care what the "experts" on Twitter have said.)

I've done some research today, and I cannot find anything on point. There are cases concerning gag orders, in which a judge orders the parties not to talk about a proceeding. And there are other cases where proceedings are held "under seal" for specific reasons. Again, none of these precedents are directly relevant, as the ultimate proceeding would have been held in open court. The only issue concerns the delay of noticing the hearing. I'm not surprised this issue has not come up. Indeed, before electronic filing systems, it would have been impossible to even make such a claim as dockets were not publicly shared.

Given the lack of precedent, I'll try to reason from first principles. Judges generally have very broad control over their dockets. It is not unheard of for a motion to sit pending for months, and then the court issues an order for the parties to attend a status conference on very short notice. During the 3D-printed gun litigation, my client was sued on a Sunday afternoon by the Pennsylvania Attorney General. The district court scheduled a TRO hearing for about two hours later. I did the entire proceeding by phone from the United lounge at LaGuardia airport, with virtually no preparation time. The motion was denied about ten-minutes before boarding closed. And this was the old lounge outsidesecurity. I thankfully made my flights. When the interest of justice demands it, courts can move quickly.

Of course, the hearing in Amarillo was not scheduled hastily due to short notice. But the interest of justice may justify the decision in a different way: specifically, where the safety and security of the court are in jeopardy, a slight delay in publicizing the hearing can be warranted.

It is well known that there is limited security personnel at this small federal courthouse. I clerked in the single-judge division in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. There were three officers stationed near the front door. They were retired law enforcement who diligently performed their duties. But if they were swarmed by hundreds of protestors, they would not have been able to resist. If demonstators engaged in serial disruptions in the courtroom, similar to the Kavanaugh hearings, they would not have been able to remove everyone. The Supreme Court was able to erect barricades hours before the Dobbsleak was announced. The Amarillo court does not have similar resources. The ire against Judge Kacsmaryk rivals that of the hatred against Justice Kavanaugh. We cannot disregard that threat.

What exactly is the harm from the delay? I am not troubled by the fact that the press would have less time to plan a leisurely connection through DFW. (I've gotten stuck at DFW more times than I can count.) If the notification hit ECF on Tuesday evening, any bureau reporter in Dallas could have driven there by 9 a.m. Or Jeff Bezos could have chartered a private jet from Washington, D.C. to Amarillo. Traveling through the night is not pleasant, for sure, but when duty calls, it can be done.

The greater harm is that various groups would not have sufficient time to organize demonstrations outside the courthouse—and inside the courthouse (think of Code Pink members who disrupted the Kavanaugh hearings). Again, there is a right to public access to hearings. I am doubtful there is any similar right to allow community organizers similar time to arrange busses to Amarillo.

Was Kacsmaryk's decision unusual? Sure. But the situation here is quite unusual. I can't think of any other district court proceeding that has garnered so much attention. The national focus on this proceeding has put the safety and security of court staff at risk. A brief delay in announcing the hearing would not have prejudiced any of the parties. At most, a few national reporters would have had to rely on local bureau coverage. Democracy would not die in the darkness.

I'll assume going forward that Judge Kacsmaryk acted appropriately in delaying the posting the notice of the hearing. Now, I want to turn to the fact that this information was revealed to the press.

The Post reports that Judge Kacsmaryk "asked the lawyers on the call not to share information about it before then." We do not have a transcript of that call, so we do not know the exact words Judge Kacsmaryk used. Perhaps there was a formal oral "order." If so, the attorneys potentially violated an order. I will discuss in the next section the consequences of such a breach.

Or maybe Judge Kacsmaryk "asked" the lawyers not to reveal the information. I put the word "asked" in quotes, because usually when a judge "asks" you to do something, he is not asking you in the colloquial sense of the word. It is a polite command. I welcome any of the practicing lawyers who read this blog to weigh in: if a judge asked you not to disclose some information for a few days to protect court security, would you treat that request as optional?

Now, it is possible that some of the lawyers on the call thought that Judge Kacsmaryk was wrong to make such a request. The lawyer could have sought clarification, and asked if this was an order or a request. During the 3D-printed gun litigation I mentioned above, the court's oral statement from the bench was not clear, so I asked point blank if the injunction applied to my client. The answer was no, and I was glad I clarified that point. If Judge Kacsmaryk said it was an order, then that lawyer could have sought mandamus from the Fifth Circuit. Of course, nothing of the sort happened here. In my estimation, lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom, the Department of Justice, and Hogan Lovells (which represents the drug company), understood exactly what Judge Kacsmaryk meant. If they thought the request was "unusual," they kept their mouths shut.

How did the information get from the lawyers on the call to the Washington Post? I imagine the information could have moved in one of several ways. First, an attorney who was on the call could have personally revealed the information to the Post. And by "information," I am including the specific detail that Judge Kacsmaryk wanted to delay publishing the notice to protect court security—not just the fact that a hearing would occur on Wednesday. Second, an attorney who was on the call could have told one of her colleagues at the firm/DOJ the information, and the colleague revealed that information to the press. Third, someone from the firm/DOJ could have told the information to a friend or family member, who in turn revealed the information to the press. There are probably other ways. In all instances, the judge's admonition/order to keep the information private was not adhered to.

Here I will assume that Judge Kacsmaryk's order was appropriate, and that revealing the information was a violation of that order. What, then, is the next step? Of course, the court can ignore the issue. I worry about this approach. There may be parallels between this reveal to the Washington Post and the Dobbs leak. People may no longer treat court confidentiality as worth protecting when the cause is sufficiently justified. This reveal to the Postmay have been innocuous, and several layers removed from actual counsel. Or, it could have been a deliberate attempt to undermine the court's decision. Or someone may have engaged in civil disobedience, in response to what they thought was Judge Kacsmaryk's improper order.

The court could let the matter go for now, at least. There is a huge hearing coming up, and the court's attention is better served elsewhere. But, sooner or later, action can be taken. Specifically, the court could ask the parties on the call to certify whether they, or anyone at their firm/DOJ, revealed this information to the press, in violation of the court's order. (Again, I am assuming there was in fact an order—the transcript should shed light on this question.) This is the sort of action that the Supreme Court took to track down the leak (unsuccessfully). The lawyers may come back and say there was a communication error, and they regret this error. But this sort or order would put all counsel on notice about this practice. Leaking confidential court information cannot become the new normal after Dobbs.

Update: The New York Times describes the judge's request for secrecy as a "courtesy."

In asking the lawyers to keep quiet about the hearing, the judge did not issue a gag order, which would bar the participants on the call from sharing the information. Rather, he asked them to keep the information secret "as a courtesy."

I will wait to see the transcript.To get the Volokh Conspiracy

---

5th-circuit-planned-parenthood-abortion-00206327

Alice Miranda Ollstein

02/26/2025

A three-judge panel at the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday reversed a lower court ruling that Planned Parenthood could be liable for nearly $2 billion for defrauding Medicaid.

The unanimous ruling overturns a decision by Texas U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Donald Trump appointee. In 2023, he ruled that Planned Parenthood had to return millions in funding it received from Texas and Louisiana’s Medicaid programs and used to provide services to low-income patients. Texas is also seeking more than a billion in damages as the case continues.

The case was triggered by an anti-abortion activist’s sting operation that produced recordings of Planned Parenthood staff discussing the donation of fetal tissue from abortions for research purposes in 2015. The tapes prompted Texas and Louisiana to try to throw the provider out of their Medicaid programs and prevent low-income patients from going to its clinics for non-abortion services like testing for sexually transmitted diseases and contraception. After several years of litigation, Planned Parenthood remains part of Louisiana’s Medicaid program but not Texas’.

Wednesday’s narrow, pre-trial ruling — from George H.W. Bush appointee Rhesa Barksdale, George W. Bush appointee Leslie Southwick and Barack Obama appointee James Graves Jr. — focused on the challengers’ attempt to hold Planned Parenthood’s national organization financially liable by arguing that the group’s lawyers wrongly advised their affiliates in Texas and Louisiana to continue billing Medicaid while the case played out. The appeals court held that the attorneys can’t be sued by a third party for advice they gave to their own clients.

“If private attorneys did not have immunity for their activities within the scope of litigation, they would be subject to suit from a third party every time they represent an unpopular client or advance an unpopular issue,” the judges wrote. “It is not difficult to imagine the chilling effect that would have on private attorneys’ willingness to participate in unpopular cases.”

Planned Parenthood maintains it did nothing wrong and described the case as an ideologically driven attempt to bankrupt it — noting that Texas sued their national arm as well as their lawyers and state medical providers.

“This baseless case has only one goal: to shut down Planned Parenthood and deny patients access to sexual and reproductive health care,” the organization’s general counsel, Susan Manning, said in a statement following the ruling. “The three-judge panel followed the law and the facts to reach their decision. We look forward to having our day in court where we expect to be vindicated.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did not respond to a request for comment.

The case now returns to the district court for further arguments on the remaining claims against the state affiliates.

Cutting state and federal funding to Planned Parenthood is a top priority of the anti-abortion movement, and activists are pushing in Congress, state legislatures and other lawsuits to block the provider from receiving money from Medicaid, the Title X family planning program and other government sources.

===

wapo no lnx

Trump-appointed judge rejects lawsuit targeting special counsel Jack Smith

U.S. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk denied Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request to temporarily block special counsel Jack Smith from destroying records.

November 26, 2024

Special counsel Jack Smith, in August 2023, arriving to announce the indictment of Donald Trump. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

By Tobi Raji

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas has rejected the state’s long-shot attempt to temporarily block special counsel Jack Smith from destroying records related to his investigation into President-elect Donald Trump, calling the state’s argument “unserious.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) had asked U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk to order Smith to preserve the records, including any communications Smith’s office had with a “range of outside parties” and information regarding the cellphones assigned to Smith’s team, among other items, according to the complaint.

What readers are saying

The comments reflect a strong criticism of Ken Paxton, highlighting his past legal issues and perceived lack of integrity. Many commenters express skepticism about his future political prospects, particularly in relation to Trump. Additionally, there is a discussion about Jack... Show more

This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.

---

ggl 3 25

Accountable US

Accountable.US Condemns Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk For Allowing Republican States To Judge Shop Abortion Pill Lawsuit

Texas-based Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk will allow Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas to move ahead with their lawsuit seeking to restrict access to the abortion pill...

.Jan 17, 2025

Politico

5th Circuit rebuffs ruling against Planned Parenthood

The unanimous ruling overturns a decision by Texas U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Donald Trump appointee.

.3 weeks ago

Hillsdale Collegian

Q&A: Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk offers advice on career, law school

Serving as an assistant United States attorney in the Department of Justice representing the United States. I was able to work on National...

.Sep 26, 2024

The Guardian

Judge allows lawsuit aiming to restrict abortion pills across US to proceed

Texas judge Matthew Kacsmaryk rules attorneys general of Idaho, Kansas and Missouri can continue mifepristone case.

.Jan 17, 2025

Reuters

Woman charged with threatening Texas judge after abortion pill ruling

A California woman has been indicted on charges that she threatened to assault and murder a federal judge in Texas in April 2023,...

.Oct 24, 2024

Reproductive Freedom for All

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA Court Case

Last updated: 01/16/2025. On January 16, 2025, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the GOP-led states of Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas can proceed with their...

.Jan 16, 2025

The Washington Post

Trump-appointed judge rejects lawsuit targeting special counsel Jack Smith

U.S. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk denied Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's request to temporarily block special counsel Jack Smith from...

.Nov 26, 2024

Ms. Magazine

Judge Who Wanted to Ban Mifepristone Refuses to Dismiss Case

Despite a Supreme Court ruling that the original plaintiffs lacked standing, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is allowing three non-Texas states to...

.Jan 17, 2025

The Presidential Prayer Team

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, Northern Texas U.S. District Court

Northern Texas U.S. District Court. Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk was born in 1977 in Gainesville, Florida. He earned an undergraduate degree from...

.Jan 2, 2025

Law and Crime News

New complaint challenging ‘mail order abortion drug economy’ lands before Texas judge whose mifepristone ban was reversed by SCOTUS

Missouri, Kansas, Idaho sued the FDA over abortion pill mifepristone. Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk will hear the challenge.

.Oct 17, 2024

---

Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk | Northern District of Texas

US Courts (.gov)

https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov › judge › judge-matthe...

Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk. You are here ... Court Reporter: Please call the Amarillo Clerk's Office at 806-468-3800 ... Amarillo, Texas 79101-1559.

Matthew J. Kacsmaryk - Wikipedia

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Matthew_J._Kacsmar...

[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_J._Kacsmaryk)

Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk (born 1977) is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Appointed by: Donald Trump

Born: 1977 (age 45–46); Gainesville, Florida‎, ...‎

Education: Abilene Christian University (‎BA‎); ...‎

Red Mass · ‎Mary Lou Robinson · ‎Donald Trump judicial...

Matthew Kacsmaryk - Ballotpedia

:{:{}:

Ballotpedia

https://ballotpedia.org › Matthew_Kacsmaryk

Kacsmaryk was a deputy general counsel for the First Liberty Institute from 2014 to 2019. According to the Amarillo Globe-News, the First Liberty Institute ...

Place of birth: Gainesville

Judicial nominations and... · ‎About the court

Biden Agenda Hits Wall in Sought-After Texas Federal Judge (1)

Bloomberg Law

https://news.bloomberglaw.com › us-law-week › bide...

Feb 10, 2023 — ... policies on immigrant, reproductive, and LGBTQ rights have all hit the same roadblock in Amarillo, Texas: Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

A Federal Judge in Amarillo Could Effectively Ban the ...

:{:{}:

Texas Monthly

https://www.texasmonthly.com › ... › News & Politics

Feb 28, 2023 — A mysterious group has filed a suit in Amarillo—guaranteeing it would be heard by Matthew Kacsmaryk, a longtime religious-right activist.

Judge in abortion-pill lawsuit schedules hearing but delays ...

The Texas Tribune

https://www.texastribune.org › 2023/03/12 › texas-ab...

1 day ago — Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk wanted to minimize protests and threats ... around the Potter County Courthouse in downtown Amarillo on Feb.

---

Kacsmaryk dis- hon

texas judge procrastinates on releasing date of first medication abortion hearing to the public: report

Education and career[

Federal judicial service:

Notable cases[

Personal life[

See also:

References

Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk | Northern District of Texas

Matthew J. Kacsmaryk - Wikipedia

Matthew Kacsmaryk - Ballotpedia

Biden Agenda Hits Wall in Sought-After Texas Federal Judge (1)

A Federal Judge in Amarillo Could Effectively Ban the ...

Judge in abortion-pill lawsuit schedules hearing but delays ...