Misconduct Complaint Filed Against Texas Judge in Hate Group Training Case

A Trump judge sends Southwest Airlines to right-wing reeducation camp

Ruth Marcus does an excellent job of pointing out how another Trump appointed judge (from Texas) is stomping on the Constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. The judge in this case doesn't seem to understand the difference between people being allowed to hold religious beliefs and religious people harassing others who don't share their religious beliefs. The article is well worth reading. Here are some excerpts:

Another day, another extremist ruling by another extremist Trump judge, and this decision — from Texas, no surprise — is straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The judge held lawyers for Southwest Airlines in contempt of court for their actions in a religious-discrimination case brought by a former flight attendant and ordered them to undergo “religious liberty training.” And not just any instruction, but training conducted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative group that litigates against same-sex marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights. [emphasis added] The issue arises from a lawsuit filed by Charlene Carter, a flight attendant for more than 20 years and a longtime antagonist of the Southwest flight attendants union. In 2017, after union members attended the Women’s March under a “Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants” banner, Carter sent Facebook messages to the union president containing graphic antiabortion messages.

[See more under the cut.]

“This is what you supported during your Paid Leave with others at the Women’s MARCH in DC …. You truly are Despicable in so many ways,” Carter wrote in one message accompanying a video of an aborted fetus. After the union president complained, Southwest fired Carter, saying her conduct “crossed the boundaries of acceptable behavior,” was “inappropriate, harassing, and offensive,” and “did not adhere to Southwest policies and guidelines.” An arbitrator found that Southwest had just cause for the firing. Carter, represented by the National Right to Work Committee, sued, claiming Southwest and the union violated her rights under federal labor laws and Title VII. The federal job-bias law bars employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, and Carter claimed she was dismissed because of her sincerely held religious beliefs against abortion. [...] The scary part is what came next. [U.S. District Judge Brantley] Starr instructed the airline to “inform Southwest Flight Attendants that, under Title VII, [Southwest] may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs.” Instead, Southwest said in a message to staff that the court “ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our Employees for their religious practices and beliefs.” This sent Starr into orbit.... “In the universe we live in — the one where words mean something — Southwest’s notice didn’t come close to complying with the Court’s order,” Starr said. “To make matters worse,” he said, Southwest had circulated a memo about the decision to its employees repeating its view that Carter’s conduct was unacceptable and emphasizing the need for civility. “Southwest’s speech and actions toward employees demonstrate a chronic failure to understand the role of federal protections for religious freedom,” Starr decreed. He proceeded to order three Southwest lawyers to undergo eight hours of religious-liberty training — a move he described as “the least restrictive means of achieving compliance with the Court’s order.” Luckily, Starr observed, “there are esteemed nonprofit organizations that are dedicated to preserving free speech and religious freedom.” [...] Adjectives fail me here. This is not even close to normal.... the notion of subjecting lawyers to a reeducation campaign by the likes of the ADF is tantamount to creating a government-endorsed thought police. Imagine the uproar — and I’m not suggesting these groups are in any way comparable — if a liberal-leaning federal judge ordered instruction on women’s rights (those are constitutionally protected, too) by Planned Parenthood. [...] This is the alarming legacy that former president Donald Trump has left us — a skewed bench that he would augment if reelected. The Trump judges seem to be competing among themselves for who can engage in the greatest overreach. [...] Conservatives are quick to balk at anything resembling the order that Starr issued when they disagree with the underlying principle. [...] I need no excuses for calling this what it is: a reeducation program — outrageous, unconstitutional and an abuse of judicial authority. [emphasis added]

This ChatGPT fuckery case is so interesting. Thank you for writing it up and making it more understandable to the general public. I know it's entirely speculation but do you think that this has potential to set the tone for AI tools in the legal profession (ie no one credible uses them, all use has to be disclosed and will weaken your arguments, etc) or that it will be focused primarily on the behaviour of individuals specifically and their lack/failure of professional responsibility?

You are welcome! And I don't know? There was federal judge in Texas who just issued a requirement that "All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must, together with their notice of appearance, file on the docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being." (This is a specific rule for filings in his courtroom - judges are allowed to make these specific rules. So this is only for a requirement for people specifically appearing in front of Judge Brantley Starr in the Northern District of Texas.) Based on the timing, a lot of the reporting I've seen has linked it to the New York case I've been discussing, but (at least as far as I have seen) there hasn't been any confirmation from the judge that the two are linked.

I think this particular case appears to be so extremely bad in terms of existing professional responsibility that it could be fairly easy for "AI" proponents to brush it aside? Because most of the proponents were already including disclaimers of, "well of course you have to double check," and "it sometimes makes things up." As I said in another post - the underlying ethics issues would be the same if they had gotten the brief and the "opinions" by asking some random dude in the street. Going back to that certificate required by the Texas judge - of course an attorney should understand that they are responsible for the contents of any filing they sign and submit to the court! That's already part of the rules!

On the other hand, it's gotten so much widespread bad press that it could possibly spook some people/firms who might have otherwise been willing to give it a try?

On the third hand, as I understand it, there are a lot of products being marketed as "AI" right now that do very different things. I think chatbots and "AI" have gotten somewhat conflated in the public discourse recently, but as I understand it, chatbots are just one small part of a wide variety of products and tools that are being marketed as "AI."

Someone who works in a private firm or in the judiciary might have a different perspective/more insight on this front. From my perspective, I'm just watching to see how it plays out.

Lisa Needham at Public Notice:

It was likely only a matter of time before right-wing federal judges decided to weigh in on student protests over the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians. And, these judges being the reactionaries they are, their contribution to the discourse is not designed to provide solutions or even to advance a coherent worldview. Instead, it’s just some good old-fashioned hippie-punching. On Monday, 13 federal judges, led by Trump appointees James Ho of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and Lisa Branch of the Eleventh Circuit, sent a letter to the president of Columbia University, Minouche Shafik. They stated they would no longer hire as law clerks anyone who attends Columbia University — the undergraduate and the law school — starting with the entering class of 2024. 

This isn’t the first time Ho and Branch have pulled this stunt. In the fall of 2022, they both declared they would no longer hire law clerks from Yale Law School after students disrupted speeches by right-wing speakers. In March 2023, they extended their boycott to Stanford after students heckled fellow Trump appointee Judge Kyle Duncan. This time around, they’re joined in the letter to Columbia by 11 other Trump-appointed judges (Alan Albright, David Counts, James W. Hendrix, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, Jeremy D. Kernodle, Tilman E. Self III, Matthew H. Solomson, Brantley Starr, Drew B. Tipton, Daniel M. Traynor, and Stephen Alexander Vaden). The esteemed jurists have three demands for Columbia — but they don’t provide any facts, context, or legal reasoning to underpin them. At only two pages, this is a thin little screed, particularly given that fully one-third of a page is just the list of the judges’ names. 

[...]

Quixotically, the people who will be most hurt by this are conservative students. The progressive students out protesting right now don’t want to clerk for judges like this. Right-wing students who might have contemplated attending Columbia will presumably go elsewhere, meaning the viewpoint diversity the judges demand won’t happen either. When Judge Ho announced his Yale clerk boycott, a Yale student asked him exactly this: “How will we fix the culture of students … if all of the conservatives suddenly boycott Yale with the judges?” Ho didn’t have an answer, instead saying that “if someone has a better idea, I am all ears” and that “the objective is very simple, it’s to restore free speech.” These judges are only part of the current right-wing project to redefine free speech and tolerance as the absence of diversity. They’re joined by people like New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, who has pushed the “great replacement theory” that Democrats are importing millions of undocumented immigrants to replace white voters. This is a theory endorsed by the marchers at Charlottesville and grounded in the antisemitic belief that Jews are behind the plan. These days, Stefanik is a self-styled protector of Jewish students, holding hearings to harangue university administrators over their ostensibly antisemitic behavior and celebrating when she gets them fired.

There’s also Christopher Rufo, who has helped with everything from destroying Florida’s public university system to ousting former Harvard president Claudine Gay. There’s former Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller, whose “America First Legal” law firm exists largely to file lawsuits to block any government initiative that attempts to redress historical wrongs against people of color. And there are any number of feckless state legislators who are eradicating all diversity initiatives in their states. At root, this is a profoundly cynical enterprise. None of this is borne out of concern for Jewish students. Rather, they serve as a convenient prop for the latest iteration of MAGA bombast. None of these people will ever confront the antisemitism at the core of their party and that Trump, their presumptive presidential nominee, has a decades-long history of stoking. These judges will continue to use their lifetime appointments to roll back rights for everyone they don’t like and they will continue to demand that schools show them fealty. Meanwhile, the students they loathe will continue to risk their safety and their future by standing in solidarity with people thousands of miles away. The kids, as they say, are alright.   

13 right-wing judicial activists serving on various federal courts sent a letter to Columbia University’s scandal-tarred President Minouche Shafik that they will not hire any Columbia attender for law clerk positions in the future as part of the overblown right-wing moral panic about antisemitism on college campuses.

The sanctions order handed down by District Judge Brantley Starr, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, are an unusual demand given that the group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, has a lengthy history of representing religious adherents in high-profile cases seeking to bolster religious protections and roll back LGBTQ and reproductive rights nationwide.

Last year, a jury found that both Southwest and Transport Union Workers discriminated against Charlene Carter when it fired the flight attendant after she “expressed her pro-life beliefs to her union president.”

What a crock of crap.

U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr issued an order Monday that three senior Southwest Airlines lawyers attend eight hours of “religious-liberty training” this month as part of court-ordered sanctions in a employment law case brought by a flight attendant who claimed religion-based discrimination.

What’s more, Starr, a Trump appointee and former longtime lawyer in the Texas Attorney General’s Office, specified that the airline’s lawyers must take this “religious-liberty training” from the far-right Christian, extremist legal advocacy organization, Alliance Defending Freedom.

The sanctions, in large part, were ordered as a result of the fact that — following a jury loss in the employment case — Southwest was supposed to send out a notice that it “may not” discriminate against flight attendants on the basis of their religious practices and beliefs, but instead sent out a notice that it “does not” discriminate and a follow-up memorandum about “civility.” (Southwest is appealing the jury verdict.)

There is certainly much more to be discussed about this order — its propriety in general and in this case in particular — but I just wanted to highlight this to make sure people were aware of it and of the inclusion of ADF in this judge’s order.

ADF’s lawyers — including Erin Hawley, whose husband is Sen. Josh Hawley — are the ones currently litigating to end the availability of one abortion medication drug, mifepristone, nationwide. The group was behind 303 Creative v. Elenis, the case from this past U.S. Supreme Court term about the woman who didn’t want to make wedding websites for same-sex couples — another case that could have substantial fallout.

ADF is not an unbiased, educational institution — nor does it pretend to be. The only relevant “training” its website discusses in the training section is a “Legal Academy” connecting “like-minded attorneys” in an effort to show lawyers how “to effectively advocate for religious liberty, free speech, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.“

this is them btw

Supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad

Defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad

Contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia

Claimed that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society

@socialistexan @chrisdornerfanclub

Judge Orders 3 Southwest Lawyers Take Religious Liberty Training After Trampling On First Amendment

A federal judge ordered three Southwest Airlines lawyers to undergo “religious-liberty training” after it fired an attendant who had anti-abortion beliefs, according to reports.

U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr said the lawyers who defied court orders should brush up on their First Amendment knowledge at the Christian group “Alliance Defending Freedom,” ruling the organization “is particularly well-suited” to teach them, according to the New York Post. Starr said the three lawyers did not understand federal protections for religious freedom, Fortune reported.

Trump-appointed judge orders Southwest lawyers to get 'religious-liberty training' from 'hate group': report - RawStory.com

United States District Court Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas on Monday ordered three Southwest Airlines attorneys to attend "religious-liberty training" through the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

Clayton "Lee" Brantley, LT Scott Tolliver, Jan Jenkins, Schae Velazquez/Harrison, just 1 ep ppl now: DawnMarie Ferrara, Jason Sims-Prewitt, rico devereaux, kenny suarez, Diane Modafferi, brian kong, kevin jiggets, sean holland, dan wells, ted lane, link baker, andrew brian carter kemp, kristina, hayes radnor, marino eltony williams, greta bailey michelle anne johnson, aaron norvell, harrison kate rene gleason, gavin funches, priscilla garitamonfriez matt medrano, Tate anna bowen, king exie booker, billups tatum shank, simms christopher michael, ellroy cantrell harris, christopher wolfeKing Joseph bro's name is backwards I love itr, robert henley starr, josh hopkinsLanger adam zalt, Julian Reyes, hastings, billy mayo

There's also a Julian or Jamie or smth, the one who buys baby supplies with castle

those are weird tho & misorganized so like idrk bro

米テキサス北部地区連邦地裁の Brantley Starr 判事が自身の担当する訴訟について、提出文書に生成 AI を使用しないこと、または生成 AI を使用した提出文書の正確性を人の手で確認することを保証する文書を訴訟記録へ登録するよう、出廷するすべての弁護士や弁護士を立てない訴訟当事者に要件として義務付けた (要件の Internet Archive スナップショット※、 Ars Technica の記事、 The Register の記事)。 判事は生成 AI プラットフォームが非常に強力なものであり、離婚手続きや文書開示請求、文書の誤りの指摘、口頭弁論における質問の予想など法律の分野で多くの用途があるとしつつ、訴訟摘要書には使用できないと指摘する。これらのプラットフォームの現状ではハルシネーションやバイアスを生み出す傾向があり、ハルシネーションでは引用や判例さえも捏造してしまう。また、弁護士は自身の個人的な偏見や先入観や信仰とは別として誠実に法を守り、クライアントを弁護すると宣誓するが、AI は宣誓する必要のない人がプログラミングしたものであり、偏りや信頼性の問題があるという。そのため、あるプラットフォームが訴訟摘要書に必要な正確性と信頼性を備えていると信じる訴訟当事者は、その理由を説明する必要があるとのことだ。

米連邦地裁判事、生成AIによる訴訟摘要書は正確性を人の手で確認するよう義務付け | スラド IT

In Texas giudice vieta agli avvocati di usare contenuti ChatGpt

(ANSA) – ROMA, 31 MAG – Nessun documento legale redatto dall’intelligenza artificiale. È l’aut aut messo da un giudice federale del Texas dopo i casi dell’uso dell’IA in tribunale.    L’ultimo è accaduto pochi giorni fa quando un avvocato a New York per costruire una causa si è affidato a ChatGpt che ha fornito sei casi precedenti, tutti risultati completamente inesistenti.    Brantley Starr,…

View On WordPress

Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence

https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-brantley-starr Comments

You fire unjustly, you rehire. Judge Orders Pro-Life Flight Attendant Re-Hired At Southwest Airlines

You fire unjustly, you rehire. Judge Orders Pro-Life Flight Attendant Re-Hired At Southwest Airlines

Original articale can be found here. A Texas federal judge has ordered Southwest Airlines to reinstate Charlene Carter, the flight attendant who made headlines after a jury ruled that she was unlawfully fired for expressing pro-life views and for criticizing her union. In a decision filed on Dec. 5, five months after a jury decided in Carter’s favor, Judge Brantley Starr remarked, “Bags fly free…

View On WordPress