Trans Activist Attorneys Caught Rigging The 'Game'

Top federal judges in Alabama concluded "without reservation" that attorneys litigating trans issues intentionally abused the judicial process by judge shopping to improve their chances of success.

Photo by Chris Linnett on Unsplash

Federal judges who preside over three judicial districts in Alabama have found evidence of shameless judge shopping in two cases involving transgender issues that were filed by attorneys from prominent civil rights groups.

Judge shopping occurs when unscrupulous litigants and lawyers interfere with the orderly administration of justice by circumventing the random assignment of judges to a case.

The judicial panel concluded the plaintiffs’ attorneys “purposefully attempted to circumvent the random case assignment procedures” for U.S. District Courts in Alabama.

Thirty-nine civil rights attorneys were initially implicated in the scandal but most were dropped for lack of evidence of “intent.” Nine attorneys are looking at fines and/or penalties.

The attorneys involved worked for Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, ACLU Foundation, Transgender Law Center, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, and private firms, King & Spaulding LLP of Atlanta, Cooley LLP. of California, and Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC of Alabama.

Here’s what happened.

Civil rights attorneys filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of Alabama on April 8, 2022, against the Alabama Governor, Secretary of State and district attorneys from two counties challenging an Alabama law that prohibited gender-affirming care for minors.

The case (‘Ladinsky’) was randomly assigned to Judge Annemarie Carnie Axon.

Four days later, a second lawsuit (‘Walker’) was filed in the Middle District of Alabama against Alabama’s Secretary of State and district attorneys for two counties in that district. That case also challenged Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act. It was randomly assigned to Chief Judge Emily C. Marks.

The attorneys in the Walker case filed a motion to reassign the case to the Northern District of Alabama and Judge Myron H. Thompson, who had ruled in their favor in a 2018 lawsuit (‘Corbitt’) involving the sex designation of transgenders on Alabama driver’s licenses. One attorney called Thompson’s chambers to influence the proposed reassignment.

The Walker attorneys contended in court documents that the Walker and Corbitt cases were related, even though the Corbitt case already was decided.

At that point, Chief Judge Marks announced the Walker case would be moved from the Middle District to the Northern District, where the first case was filed. When there are two related cases, the standard procedure is to transfer the second case to the district where the first case was filed. The Walker attorneys “eventually” consented and the case was transferred to the Northern District, where it was randomly assigned to Judge Liles C. Burke.

Because Judge Axon was involved in a criminal trial and the plaintiffs’ attorneys were seeking an immediate injunction, Judge Axon transferred the Ladinsky case to Judge Burke, who now had both cases.

The judicial panel said the assignment of both cases to Judge Burke caused panic among some of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, who expressed “wholly unwarranted” and undue “suspicions” that Judge Burke had “reached out to obtain the Ladinsky case.”

The plaintiffs’ attorneys thought Judge Burke was not a “good draw.” The panel writes that “[s]omeone apparently forward a webpage to counsel stating that Judge Burke had a portrait of Jefferson Davis in his state court chambers when he was nominated to the federal bench, which everyone took as evidence of unfavorable conservative leaning.” Also, Burke was appointed by former GOP President Donald Trump.

The civil rights attorneys voluntarily dismissed both cases

Plaintiffs’ attorney Melody Eagan, from Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, then told two different media outlets that the Ladinsky case would be immediately refiled.

Judge Burke noticed.

On April 18, 2022, Judge Burke wrote an order denying the motion for a preliminary restraining order in Ladinsky as moot because of the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal. He was not happy.

(cont. below for paid subscribers)