This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The fight is over whether employers can demand "ideological conformity" from employees, and an appeals court in Minnesota has just given it a jump-start.
Just the News reports that's the fight in a court case brought by a Filipina-American doctor with black children who charges a Minneapolis public hospital attacked her, and dismissed her.
The reason alleged? She criticized Black Lives Matter and critical race theory, called COVID-19 the "China virus" and said the protests following George Floyd's death, which inflicted billions of dollars of damage across America, were "riots."
It is the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that unanimously revived the case brought by Tara Gustilo after a lower court judge had incorrectly tossed it out.
The fight is with the Hennepin Healthcare System, and focuses on the First Amendment.
"The three-judge panel faulted U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson for usurping a jury by determining the HHS board approved Gustilo's removal as OB-GYN department chair without also adopting the Medical Executive Committee's basis for removing her: Gustilo's Facebook posts on BLM, CRT and COVID among other subjects," the report explained.
Nelson is a Barack Obama appointee, and failed to determine the "threshold question" in the case, whether the posts were protected by the First Amendment.
The appeals court decision now also will allow Gustilo to resume her complaints about illegal race discrimination and retaliation.
Gustilo's lawyer, Daniel Cragg, said in the report that the case will result in a determination of "the boundaries of free speech in professional settings and the consequences of challenging institutional ideologies."
The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism is funding the case, and the Upper Midwest Law Center is contributing to the representation.
The employer had not had problems with Gustilo, educated at Harvard, and she "created a program to reflect cultural differences in birthing practices to better serve her diverse patients," the report said. Then she revealed her opinions about race and more.
The opinion said, "Before 2020, [Gustilo] received generally positive performance reviews."
But her opinions, on social media, caused clashes with coworkers.
She challenged the board with a question about continuing discussions about systemic racism, because that "ended in the '60s," after which the board adopted an "equity" scheme to oppose "systemic racism."
Coworkers complained they feelings were hurt, by being bullied.
Officials then turned negative in their reviews of her work, and she was put on leave based on information that included her personal opinions on social media, prompting the fight over First Amendment speech rights.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jack Smith was pulled out of private practice, given vast governmental power and tens of millions of tax dollars to be a key player in the Democrats' lawfare campaign against President-elect Donald Trump between his first term in office, and his coming second, which will launch Jan. 20.
He assembled two criminal cases against Trump. One essentially was over his opinions about the 2020 election; the other about having government documents from his presidency at his home.
Curiously, Joe Biden also was found about the same time to have had government documents at his home, but instead of filing charges like the federal government did against Trump, officials gave him a pass.
Of course both of Smith's cases against Trump collapsed and were dismissed when he was elected in November.
But GOP warnings that those orchestrating the lawfare against Trump eventually would face accountability are about to become real, according to a new Washington Examiner report.
It detailed five focal points should investigators and prosecutors wish to review the Democrats' actions against Trump.
The report pointed out that Trump several times has promised to pursue justice against Smith, and others, for bringing cases that were highly partisan, and considered by Republicans to be unfair..
In fact, members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees already have dispatched notices to Smith, demanding he save all records of his cases, a sign "lawmakers intend to summon testimony and documents…"
The report said one focal point for an investigation could be Smith's courtroom antics during the final weeks of the campaign.
He filed a massive motion in court in October, just days before the election, to promote his case.
"The document contained details that Smith was deprived of presenting in a trial (since the case never moved to a trial stage), including damning and unflattering grand jury material about how Trump went about objecting to the 2020 election results," the report explained.
Experts called it a "cheap shot" and pointed out it defied a DOJ practice that requires delaying action if it could affect an election.
Then also facing possible review are the actions of Smith's prosecutors, Jay Bratt and J.P. Cooney, the report said.
"A misconduct allegation against Bratt was first raised in court by an attorney representing Walt Nauta, one of the co-defendants in the classified documents case against Trump. The attorney, Stanley Woodward, said that during a closed-door meeting, Bratt violated ethics rules by bringing up Woodward's application to become a judge while Bratt was trying to goad Woodward into complying with him in the Trump case. Smith has disputed the accusation," the report explained.
Concerns about Cooney's actions relate to his prosecution of Trump ally Roger Stone, and came up when, according to a DOJ inspector general report, Cooney wanted an unusually harsh penalty.
When he did not get his way, he claimed the Trump administration at the time was giving Stone preferential treatment.
Third was Smith's decision to use a grand jury in Washington, D.C., where voters overwhelmingly opposed Trump, in the Florida case involving government documents.
"He was almost certain to have greater success [in Washington] in trying to evade attorney-client privilege claims, to conduct the investigation into the classified documents case that almost certainly was going to be venued in Florida," an expert decided.
That topic even was ordered to be explained by the documents case judge.
Mike Davis, the founder of Article III Project which focuses on America's judiciary, said there also is a federal law known as conspiracy against rights that could be used against Smith.
He said Smith "must face severe legal, political, and financial consequences for their blatant lawfare and election interference."
Finally, the report said, there are the political motivations in the cases.
"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has long raised concerns about politically driven investigators in authoritative roles at the FBI, including one who Grassley said helped Smith in the early stages of his investigations into Trump," the report said.
One agent, in fact, was "forced" to retire because of his "extreme anti-Trump political bias," yet had a role in starting the anti-Trump cases.
Grassley charged the case was politicized and "reeks of undeniable partisan tactics."
The prosecutor in Alec Baldwin's manslaughter case dropped the charges for good this week, but the actor faces continued legal exposure over his role in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer.
The end of the criminal case against Baldwin clears the way for relatives of Halyna Hutchins to sue Baldwin in civil court, a lawyer for the family said.
Baldwin has always denied wrongdoing in accidentally killing Hutchins, who was on the set of Baldwin's Western movie when he shot her with a prop gun in October of 2021.
Special prosecutor Kari Morrissey said she was dropping her appeal this week after New Mexico's attorney general, Democrat Raúl Torrez, signaled he would not commit resources to pursuing the case.
"As a result, the State's efforts to continue to litigate the case in a fair and comprehensive manner have been met with multiple barriers that have compromised its ability to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law," local prosecutors said.
It caps a winding legal saga that saw the charges dropped, then re-filed, only for the judge to dismiss the trial in July on due process grounds.
The Hutchins family is being represented by Gloria Allred, a famous civil rights attorney. She said the family wants Baldwin to answer questions under oath.
"With the withdrawal that was made public yesterday, we are now able to proceed with our civil case,” Allred said. “Clearly, the rights of Alec Baldwin were protected, but the due process rights of the victims — Halyna Hutchins and her parents and her sister — were violated.”
At a press conference on Christmas Eve, Allred blasted Torrez for dropping the appeal and compared him to the "Grinch who stole Christmas."
"It's not over until it's over, and it's not over yet," Allred said. "Although the attorney general of New Mexico, Raúl Torrez, is the Grinch who stole this Christmas, we will work to ensure that a future Christmas will be without this Grinch."
Torrez has blamed local prosecutors for botching the case. He said continuing to pursue the matter is not feasible after the judge's "blistering assessment of the special prosecutor’s gross mishandling of the case at trial.”
"Attorney General Torrez will not prolong the grief and anguish of Ms. Hutchins’ family in the vain attempt to salvage the compromised criminal case against Mr. Baldwin,” spokesperson Lauren Rodriguez said.
“There are other victims’ families in Santa Fe County and across New Mexico who are awaiting justice, and our energy needs to be devoted to supporting those cases on appeal.”
While Baldwin is off the hook for criminal charges, Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is serving 18 months in prison after she was convicted for involuntary manslaughter.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court has tossed out a "contempt" finding against former Colorado county clerk Tina Peters, who not long ago was jailed for nine years for a situation in which she allegedly revealed an election systems password, for lack of evidence.
A report from Colorado Politics explains the Colorado Court of Appeals determined there simply wasn't sufficient evidence to sustain the claim by retired judge Paul Dunkelman, and the accompanying $1,500 fine.
Witnesses told Dunkelman of seeing Peters, during a court hearing, holding her iPad as if recording, and on that basis Dunkelman held Peters in contempt.
He claimed, "She was recording a proceeding. She was doing so covertly. She hid the fact when called out on it by Judge Barrett — certainly an indication to this court that Ms. Peters was aware it was not acceptable, if not a violation of a court order."
But the appeals court noted there was no finding at the lower court that were was a valid court order prohibiting recording, and whether Peters knew about it.
The appeals panel said there simply wasn't evidence in the record to support the case against Peters, a former Mesa County clerk who is serving a sentence of nine years for "attempting to influence a public servant, official misconduct and related offenses stemming from a security breach of her office's elections equipment in 2021."
The contempt claim developed from Peters' attendance at a hearing for her deputy clerk in 2022. Prosecutors claimed she was recording and she denied it.
The judge then continued the hearing, failing to have determined that Peters had been recording.
Prosecutors later brought their now-debunked claim against Peters.
Judge Stephanie Dunn, on the appeals panel, confirmed, "Peters is correct that the contempt judgment lacks several required findings, without which it cannot stand."
While Peters is serving a prison term for her actions that might have exposed an election systems password, prosecutors have given a pass to a Democrat state official in Colorado, Jenna Griswold, the secretary of state, who allowed lists of election systems passwords to be posted online and then schemed to conceal that fact.
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked her agenda with a scolding.
That report explained Griswold "played an integral role when Tina Peters, then a clerk in Mesa County, made a copy of the 2020 election results from her county and, in the course, exposed briefly an election systems password."
Prosecutors gave Griswold a pass after she leaked "current passwords for voting equipment in 34 Colorado counties, including El Paso."
Griswold has claimed there was no election security threat because two passwords are needed to access each machine.
The family of Donna Major, who was shot to death in 2017, is outraged that President Joe Biden commuted the sentence of her killer just days before Christmas, the Daily Wire reported. Brandon Council was sentenced to death for killing Major and Kathryn Skeen during a 2017 bank robbery.
Biden is on a tear when it comes to letting criminals off the hook and explained his motivations. "I am commuting the sentences of 37 of the 40 individuals on federal death row to life sentences without the possibility of parole," the president said in a statement Monday.
"These commutations are consistent with the moratorium my Administration has imposed on federal executions in cases other than terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder. Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss," Biden claimed.
"But guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vice President, and now President, I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level. In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted," Biden concluded.
Biden's explanation does nothing for the families whose loved ones were killed by people like Council. Major's family spoke to Fox News Tuesday about the sucker punch this was for them.
"Anger -- absolute anger," Major's adult daughter Heather Turner said. "We were told from our prosecution team on Sunday afternoon. I was actually gathered with my in-laws for our family Christmas; my sister was gathered with her in-laws, and we got the call," she added.
"And I was angry. I’m still angry. I am upset that this is even happening, that one man can make this decision without even talking to the victims; without any regard for what we’ve been through, what we’re going through. I’m completely hurt, frustrated, and angry," Turner said.
Danny Jenkins, Major's husband, also expressed outrage that Biden was eager to be merciful to Council. "She was shown no mercy at all. This man walked into the bank, never said two words to her. Shot her three times in total," Jenkins recalled.
"He went and shot her coworker, Katie Skeen as well, who was totally defenseless and unaware of anything happening. I can't even believe that this is actually happening…" Jenkins said.
Council was already a career criminal when he gunned down Major, 59, and Skeen, 36, on August 21, 2017, at Crescom Bank in South Carolina, Fox News reported. The family has seen the surveillance video from the incident which showed the cold-blooded murderer briefly speaking with Major before shooting her several times.
He then scaled the bank counter and shot Skeen to death. This heinous crime was punishable by execution until Biden commuted Council's sentence, which radical "Squad" member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) called "moral" and "compassionate" of Biden.
The victim's family couldn't disagree more. "Compassion? I don't think that that's compassion," Major's other adult daughter, Katie Jenkins, said.
Biden is leaving office and casting off any last shred of decency he may have had. Like all leftists, he has all of the compassion and mercy in the world for the people committing the crimes instead of the victims.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new decision from the Iowa state Supreme Court now threatens the privacy rights of everyone in the state, according to a report from the Institute for Justice.
The fight was over random inspections demanded by city officials in Orange City, Iowa, of any – and all – rental properties.
The state's high court decided to overturn a lower court's decision that the city's mandatory rental inspection law violated the state constitution.
"The law was challenged by a coalition of tenants and their landlords, represented by the Institute for Justice," said the institute, explaining that the decision didn't even address the constitutional problem in the case.
The court simply claimed, "[b]ecause there are situations where the City's inspection requirement can operate constitutionally, the citizens' facial challenge fails."
The court also claimed the law does not require the inspections to be conducted by a government official and speculated that the government can constitutionally force someone to open their doors for inspection by a "certified third-party" inspector.
"Today's ruling is incredibly disappointing and threatens the privacy rights of all Iowans," said IJ lawyer John Wrench. ""Orange City insists that it has the authority to forcefully search the homes of our clients and all renters using warrants that are not based on any evidence of a violation. By refusing to address the constitutionality of those searches, today's decision leaves Iowans without a clear path for challenging the government's forceful entry of their homes."
The town officials decided that they can use an "administrative warrant" to simply walk into any rental unit and inspect it, and all of its contents.
"Unlike a traditional warrant, which requires probable cause that a violation has occurred, administrative warrants require no proof that any violations or wrongdoing have occurred," the IJ said.
"My husband and I are private people, and we don't want to be forced to let people we don't know into our home to go searching around, when we've done nothing wrong," said Erika Nordyke, one of the tenants in the lawsuit.
A lower court had concluded the city did, in fact, violate the state constitution.
IJ lawyer Rob Peccolo explained earlier, "An administrative warrant is not the same as a traditional search warrant – the government doesn't need to suspect you of any wrongdoing to get an administrative warrant and enter your home without your permission. The home can contain the most private information about a person or family, including their religious, political and medical information. Iowans do not want government officials going through their homes for no good reason."
The IJ explained, "Inspectors can view everything about a tenant once they are inside the home: religious, political, and medical information, as well as information about tenants' children, families, and romantic lives. Inspectors can also learn about a tenant's socio-economic status – something tenants can find embarrassing and even humiliating. Most dangerous of all, inspectors can also report suspected criminal activity to the police, meaning rental inspections can lead to arrest."
In a significant legal development, President-elect Donald Trump has agreed to a $15 million settlement with ABC News and its anchor George Stephanopoulos. The resolution aims to prevent a costly legal battle and includes specific conditions favorable to both parties.
Trump's defamation lawsuit with ABC and Stephanopoulos concludes with a $15 million agreement and public acknowledgment of a mistaken statement.
The defamation lawsuit, initiated over alleged wrongful claims made during an interview by Stephanopoulos, came to an end with the Southern District of Florida Federal Court filing. Trump's legal team, comprising Alejandro Brito and Richard Klugh, confirmed the agreement, which entails both financial compensation and public rectification.
One of the key settlement conditions included ABC News and Stephanopoulos issuing an editor's note expressing "regret" over statements made during a March 10, 2024, interview. During this exchange, Stephanopoulos inaccurately asserted that Trump had been found liable for rape, confusing it with the actual legal finding of "sexual abuse" under New York law.
To facilitate the settlement, ABC agreed to a $15 million charitable contribution aimed at supporting a future Presidential foundation and museum spearheaded by Trump. Additionally, the network consented to cover $1 million in attorney fees incurred by Trump's legal team.
The lawsuit stemmed from a controversial segment on ABC's "This Week," where Stephanopoulos, in conversation with Rep. Nancy Mace, made erroneous statements regarding Trump's legal predicaments. He repeatedly suggested Trump was found liable for rape, a claim that contradicted the actual court finding.
Specifically, Stephanopoulos queried Mace, "How do you reconcile your support for Trump with the recent testimony?" He added further assertions about court verdicts concerning Trump's conduct. This mischaracterization led to Trump's legal action, claiming defamation.
The urgency to resolve the lawsuit before trials and potential summary judgments likely influenced the swift settlement. The case was scheduled for decisive actions, with U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid setting a late December deadline for depositions and motions.
The closure of the case was officiated by Chief U.S. District Judge Cecelia Altonaga, who approved the dismissal filing. The court documentation read, "Having been advised of the settlement of the parties... the stipulation is approved," thus bringing the legal dispute to a conclusive end.
The finality of this agreement included dismissal "with prejudice," which means the case cannot be reopened, ensuring both ABC News and Trump would handle their respective legal costs without further attempts to litigate on this matter.
ABC News, through a spokesperson, expressed a sense of satisfaction with the settlement outcome. The network was reportedly "pleased" with the resolution, highlighting the mutual benefit in avoiding prolonged legal contention.
This incident underscores the critical importance of accuracy within media reporting, especially concerning high-profile subjects like political figures. Misstatements, particularly concerning legal matters, can swiftly lead to complex legal implications, as evidenced in this case.
The case also highlights the delicate balance between journalistic freedom and legal accountability, where errors in reporting can incur significant financial and reputational costs.
Looking forward, both media outlets and public figures may study this case to glean insights on navigating similar conflicts and maintaining the integrity of public communication.
As this legal chapter concludes, Trump is poised to focus on his forthcoming responsibilities as President-elect while leveraging the settlement to bolster his future initiatives through the proposed foundation.
Meanwhile, ABC News and George Stephanopoulos are likely to reflect on the lessons learned and implement measures to enhance editorial oversight and accuracy, safeguarding against future missteps.
With the completion of this case, the stage is set for both Trump and ABC to move forward, equipped with renewed understanding and strategic caution in their respective arenas.
This resolution not only closes a significant legal dispute but also signals a precedence of accountability in media declarations, impacting how news outlets operate under public scrutiny.
A federal judge agreed Thursday to a Jan. 6 rioter's request to travel to Washington, D.C., for President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration, the New York Post reported. Eric Peterson was convicted after he unlawfully entered the U.S. Capitol during the protest and faces up to a year in prison.
On Nov. 1, Peterson pleaded guilty to charges of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds. He is free without bail until his sentencing hearing on Jan. 27 but is under travel restrictions until then.
Peterson, a veteran and business owner, requested through his attorney Michael Bullotta to attend Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20. The main event requires tickets, but many revelers watch from the National Mall on a jumbotron.
Bullotta argued that Peterson did not engage in any vandalism or violence while inside the Capitol for eight minutes and was unaware that others were. The attorney also argued that Trump has promised to pardon Jan. 6 prisoners, meaning Peterson's sentence "will likely be rendered moot."
Others who were violent and destructive have made similar requests for Trump's inauguration but have met resistance. However, prosecutors did not counter Peterson's request.
This more nuanced approach perhaps represents a change in how the Jan. 6, 2021 incursion at the U.S. Capitol will now be treated. Almost immediately after the incident, Democrats attempted to turn it into a coordinated insurrection and threw the book at anyone caught in the vicinity.
However, these were ordinary Americans caught up in the "Stop the Steal" protest that suddenly escalated. While some were indeed criminal and violent, many were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
With Trump on his way to the White House and ready to grant pardons, these cases and convictions have been defanged, including Peterson's. His offense was only walking into a restricted area after rioters broke in while repeating, "This is our house!"
Peterson proceeded into the building and noted he walked "right by a police officer posted at the doors … Peterson knew that the building was off limits and he was not authorized to be there," the court filings say. Now it seems he might not face jail as the nightmare is over.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump made it clear that he would pardon Jan. 6 protesters who were convicted of crimes. Even after his election, Trump was steadfast in his pledge.
"I’m going to look at everything. We’ll look at individual cases," Trump said to NBC's Kristen Welker, Fox News reported.
"But I’m going to be acting very quickly," he added. Welker pushed back for a timeline about when this might take place.
"First day, I'm looking first day. These people have been there — how long is it? Three, four years. They’ve been in there for years. And they’re in a filthy, disgusting place that shouldn’t even be allowed to be open," Trump said.
There's no doubt Trump is unbelievably happy about how things are going since Election Day, including for people like Peterson. The 2024 presidential election was consequential for them and the nation.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been disqualified from leading the election interference prosecution against President-elect Donald Trump and his allies. This decision, made by the Georgia Court of Appeals on Thursday, raises serious doubts about the future of the case and may lead to its dismissal unless the Georgia Supreme Court intervenes, The Hill reported.
The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Willis’ past romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, a senior prosecutor on the case, created an appearance of bias. As a result, Willis was removed from the prosecution. The court’s decision reversed an earlier ruling from the trial judge that allowed Willis to continue, provided that Wade stepped aside, which he did.
Legal experts have expressed concern that the decision could end the case altogether. Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University, described the ruling as making the case “look dead,” although he noted there are still ways it could be revived. “This is complete and total omnishambles because the avenues going forward pretty much look like this case is dead,” Kreis said.
Chris Timmons, an Atlanta-based trial attorney, called the ruling “uncharted waters.” He noted that in his 17 years as a prosecutor, he had never seen an appellate court disqualify an entire district attorney's office. "The chances are not great that the case proceeds, but there’s still a chance," Timmons added.
Despite the setback, Willis is attempting to revive the case by appealing the decision to the Georgia Supreme Court. The state’s highest court, currently composed of justices appointed by Republican governors, will first decide whether to take up the case. Kreis warned that if the Georgia Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal, it could be “the end of the story” for the prosecution.
If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case and rules in Willis’ favor, the prosecution could return to her office. On the other hand, if the appellate court’s decision stands, the case would be transferred to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia (PAC), a nonpartisan state agency. PAC could assign the case to another district attorney or appoint a special prosecutor.
Pete Skandalakis, the executive director of PAC, said that not all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. In a similar case, PAC declined to pursue charges against Georgia Lt. Gov.
Burt Jones after a judge ruled that Willis could not charge him due to her involvement in a fundraiser for Jones' political opponent.
Trump’s lead attorney, Steve Sadow, celebrated the decision, calling it a “well-reasoned and just” ruling. He suggested that the court had ended what he described as a “politically motivated persecution” against Trump. “This decision puts an end to a politically motivated persecution of the next President of the United States,” Sadow said.
Trump’s co-defendants in the case also praised the ruling. Jeffrey Clark, a former Trump-era Justice Department official, referred to it as “tremendous news” and even called it a “good Christmas present.” Harrison Floyd, leader of Black Voices for Trump, took the opportunity to call for Willis to be disbarred, arguing that she must be held “accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”
Jenna Ellis, a lawyer involved in Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election, shared her thoughts on social media. “Wow, the sex scandals are really catching up with everyone today. God’s way is always best. Truth always prevails,” she wrote.
With the ruling throwing a significant obstacle in the path of the case, legal experts are split on whether it can continue. Some believe that the decision could signal the end of the prosecution, while others remain hopeful that an appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court might revive it.
Anthony Michael Kreis said that the situation is dire, noting that if the Georgia Supreme Court refuses to take up the appeal, “we’re pretty much end of story here.” However, he also acknowledged that the case could return to Willis if the court ruled in her favor. “If they take it up, there’s a good chance that they might say the appellate court was wrong and Judge McAfee’s decision stands,” Kreis said.
In the event that the appellate decision stands, the case would likely be handed over to PAC. Skandalakis emphasized that all options for further appeal had not yet been explored, and the final decision would ultimately rest with the state agency.
On New Year's Eve, the longest-serving justice in Texas Supreme Court history will enter retirement.
Nathan Hect, 75, has served on the bench since 1989 and as chief justice since 2014, the Texas Tribune reported. It now falls to Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, to choose his replacement.
While Hecht won another six-year term as chief justice in 2020, the state's constitution requires him to step down because of his age.
When Hecht first won election to the top court in 1988, the bench was still dominated by Democrats. A series of corruption scandals helped propel Hecht to victory against his Democratic opponent, who had been the subject of a 60 Minutes expose on his cozy ties with lawyers arguing in his court.
“Party politics were changing in the state at the same time, but the broader issue on our court at the time was to ensure that judges were following the law,” Hecht told the Texas Tribune in a retirement interview. “That was a driving issue.”
By the early 2000s, Hecht had become known for his staunchly conservative and pro-life views, leading critics to label him an intellectual leader of the "right-wing fringe" in Texas' courts.
But Hecht never saw his work as political. He prioritized reforms to court administration and procedure, especially to help poor people gain equal access to the justice system.
“Some people call it the justice gap. I call it the justice chasm,” Hecht said. “Because it’s just a huge gulf between the people that need legal help and the ability to provide it.”
In 2005, Hecht gained national attention for participating in a blitz of media interviews in support of his friend, Harriet Miers, who was nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court by President George W. Bush. Hecht's advocacy led to a lengthy legal battle that ended with him paying a $1,000 fine in 2016.
By 2013, Hecht had been planning to retire, but the outgoing chief justice encouraged him to seek the position.
“He wanted me to consider being his successor,” Hecht said. “So I did, and here I am. I didn’t say, ‘Let's spend 43 years on the bench,’ but one thing led to another.”
While others have used the court as a springboard for political careers - Gov. Abbott is a former Supreme Court Justice, for example - Hecht is content with the work that he accomplished on the state court, especially for the poor and disadvantaged.
"No judge wants to give his life's energy to a work that mocks the justice that he's trying to provide,” he said. “For the judiciary, this is an important issue, because when the promise of equal justice under law is denied because you're too poor, there's no such thing as equal justice under the law.”