Texas Federal Judge Jeff Brown’s Views on Roe v. Wade, and More.

History of controversial statements follows new federal judge to Galveston

AUG 31, 2019 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 16, 2022

“What can Texas do about these rulings? Short of what some states did in 1861, there’s not much that can be done,” Brown said in the speech. “A constitutional amendment would solve this, sure, but I believe that’s an uphill battle. I’m not optimistic for this to turn around any time soon.”

Booker first seized on the notion of Texas seceding — Brown said he was not suggesting that states secede “or start a civil war for any reason.” He then grilled Brown on whether he believed the Supreme Court was assuming too great a role in determining public policy in both the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage rulings.

Brown responded that it would be unbefitting for him to express personal opinions about particular Supreme Court decisions, adding: “If confirmed, I will faithfully apply all Supreme Court precedent.” He would repeat that familiar refrain a half-dozen more times throughout his nomination hearing.

Civil rights organizations have seized on Brown’s past statements as the dictums of an ideological extremist who lacks the requisite neutrality to serve a lifetime appointment.

“Brown’s record as a state judge shows that he places political goals over the rule of law and the welfare of innocent people, and he has shown disrespect for the federal judiciary in a manner unbefitting a judge on any court,” said Marge Baker of the People for the American Way, a progressive advocacy organization.

But acquaintances and legal observers familiar with Brown cast a different image: a conscientious, thoughtful jurist who doesn’t take a cookie-cutter approach to the law.

“It’s not uncommon for judges to follow the law even though they may disagree with it,” said Wanda Fowler, who served as a justice on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals with Brown. “He’s the kind of judge and he’s the kind of person who would do that.”

Brown declined to be interviewed for this story, saying in a statement he was “honored” to have been appointed to the federal bench and that he is “looking forward to joining the Galveston community.”

Brown graduated magna cum laude from the University of Houston law school, also serving as an editor of the Houston Law Review. Brown clerked for two Texas Supreme Court justices, Jack Hightower, a Democrat, and Greg Abbott, a Republican and the current governor.

He then worked for Baker Botts in Houston, where he had a civil-litigation practice, trying jury cases throughout Southeast Texas. Beginning in 2001, Brown has served at all three levels of the Texas judiciary, including the state Supreme Court for the last six years.

It was on the court of appeals where Brown began to expand his repertoire beyond civil cases. Experts say criminal cases make up more than half of the Court of Appeals docket, making that bench good training ground for a higher judicial post.

“He was always conscientious, hard working, and very practically-oriented,” said Bill Boyce, a Houston attorney who served on the court of appeals with Brown.

While on the state Supreme Court, Brown mostly toed the line in a judicial body where all nine justices are Republican, though during his federal confirmation process, civl rights activists seized on several rulings regarding rights and benefits afforded to same-sex couples.

In a 2016 case, in which the Texas Supreme Court dismissed as moot a challenge to Texas’s ban on same-sex marriage in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affirming marriage equality, Brown wrote a separate concurring opinion. Brown wrote “the status quo was that marriage in Texas was limited to the union of one man and one woman.”

During his confirmation hearing, Brown said he would “faithfully follow” the Supreme Court’s decision affirming marriage equality.

Look at all those random assignments of Deutsche Bank foreclosures.

Brown has posted links to his Twitter account to dissenting opinions in the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case guaranteeing a woman’s right to abortion, but said during his confirmation hearing that he would “faithfully follow Roe v. Wade and all Supreme Court precedent.”

After federal judges struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travelers from a number of Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, Brown condemned the rulings during an October 2017 speech. He called the rulings “an attempted coup d’etat by activist judges to halt President Trump’s so-called travel ban” and said that “their reasoning is not based in law but in their belief that we have an illegitimate president.”

Brown declined to answer whether he believed Trump’s executive order was intended to be a ban on Muslims entering the United States:

“As a federal judicial nominee, it would be unfitting for me to provide personal opinions about such political matters.”

Civil rights activists view these statements as evidence of Brown’s fidelity to Republican Party orthodoxy rather than jurisprudence. State court judges in Texas are elected positions.

“In their elections, the state court judges are running for an office usually and they do have that affiliation, so there’s a lot there where you can see that demonstrated loyalty to the Republican Party,” said Lena Zwarensteyn, fair courts campaign director for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Legal observers who know Brown point out that judges are uniquely positioned to separate their opinions from their actions on the bench. Stanley Schneider, a Houston-based attorney and a Democrat, noted that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had a conservative record as a judge but has also joined the liberal wing of the court in several key rulings.

“From (Brown’s) past, I think that’s what we should hope he should do – call balls and strikes in an evenhanded manner,” Schneider said.

Attorneys who have tried cases in court with Brown presiding do not see him as agenda-driven.

“He was always well prepared, he was always cordial with the litigants, and while he ruled against me, certainly more than he ruled against me certainly more than he ruled for me, I always thought like the playing field was level and he got a fair shake,” said Brian Wice, a Houston attorney.

Brown will be tested early in Galveston, where he replaces U.S. District Court Judge George C. Hanks Jr. on Sept. 3. Galveston County is embroiled in a federal civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of its cash bail system for felony defendants.

A federal magistrate judge recommended earlier this month that Galveston County be required to provide attorneys to felony defendants at their initial bail hearings. The magistrate judge did not recommend more comprehensive reforms such as those adopted by Harris County in a recent landmark settlement that effectively ended cash bail for misdemeanor defendants.

Brown will be tasked with making a final determination to adopt, alter, or deny the magistrate’s recommendations in the coming weeks. Fowler, Brown’s former colleage on the Court of Appeals, believes he will take a measured approach and use the Harris County settlement as guidance, but not necessarily legal precedent since it was not issued in a written order from a judge.

“He will take all of that into consideration, but overlaid over that, and of paramount interest to him, would be the federal constitutional issues and how do they play into this and factor into reaching a decision,” Fowler said.

Why you signin’ a protective order in a foreclosure case Judge Jeffrey V. Brown?