Judge Reed O'Connor: The Insane Texas District Gift That Keeps on Giving

[Brainonska511]

Two new fun cases crawling out of Judge Reed O'Connor's one man circus show as of late:

American Airlines 401k Program:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/american-airlines-focus-esg-401k-plan-is-illegal-us-judge-rules-2025-01-10/

Court Rules American Airlines Breached Fiduciary Duty in ESG Case | PLANADVISER

A federal district court in Texas found that American Airlines prioritized ESG investment goals ahead of employees’ financial interests, violating its fiduciary duties under ERISA.

www.planadviser.com

Mr O'Connor decreed that AA violated its fiduciary duty in its 401k program because of "woke ESG" funds, even though those types of funds were not default core holdings of the 401k program and they were ones that a participant would have actively had to opt into. (The TLDR for this case is that any consideration for a fund beyond making as much money as possible for the investor is considered woke and would violate fiduciary duties)

Becerra vs Braidwood:

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.

www.scotusblog.com

Obamacare can't require coverage for some HIV drugs, federal judge rules Texas judge rules HIV [PrEP] drug mandate violates religious freedom

Federal appeals court says some employers can exclude HIV prep from insurance coverage

Eight employers who challenged some federal health insurance requirements cannot be forced to provide no-cost coverage for certain types of preventive care, including HIV prep and some kinds of cancer screenings, a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled Friday.

apnews.com

Here, Mr O'Connor ruled that important public health and preventative health measures, like PrEP (for HIV prevention) and basically anything recommended by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), because a) religious groups should be able to opt-out of laws they don't like, and b) he's decided that the provision is unconstitutional because the USPSTF isn't appointed/approved by the president/Senate. It basically threatens any new coverage because of improved screening/treatment guidelines that change as medical technology and whatnot improves. This one is now going up to SCOTUS this term, after the 5th circuit clown show upheld the ruling.

 

[Amol S.]

Two new fun cases crawling out of Judge Reed O'Connor's one man circus show as of late:

American Airlines 401k Program:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/american-airlines-focus-esg-401k-plan-is-illegal-us-judge-rules-2025-01-10/

Court Rules American Airlines Breached Fiduciary Duty in ESG Case | PLANADVISER

A federal district court in Texas found that American Airlines prioritized ESG investment goals ahead of employees’ financial interests, violating its fiduciary duties under ERISA.

www.planadviser.com

Mr O'Connor decreed that AA violated its fiduciary duty in its 401k program because of "woke ESG" funds, even though those types of funds were not default core holdings of the 401k program and they were ones that a participant would have actively had to opt into. (The TLDR for this case is that any consideration for a fund beyond making as much money as possible for the investor is considered woke and would violate fiduciary duties)

Becerra vs Braidwood:

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.

www.scotusblog.com

Obamacare can't require coverage for some HIV drugs, federal judge rules Texas judge rules HIV [PrEP] drug mandate violates religious freedom

Federal appeals court says some employers can exclude HIV prep from insurance coverage

Eight employers who challenged some federal health insurance requirements cannot be forced to provide no-cost coverage for certain types of preventive care, including HIV prep and some kinds of cancer screenings, a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled Friday.

apnews.com

Here, Mr O'Connor ruled that important public health and preventative health measures, like PrEP (for HIV prevention) and basically anything recommended by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), because a) religious groups should be able to opt-out of laws they don't like, and b) he's decided that the provision is unconstitutional because the USPSTF isn't appointed/approved by the president/Senate. It basically threatens any new coverage because of improved screening/treatment guidelines that change as medical technology and whatnot improves. This one is now going up to SCOTUS this term, after the 5th circuit clown show upheld the ruling.

Supreme Court might actually side with ACC on this one if the pro-ACC people give a clever response such as the ruling involving pro-religious groups is too broad.
The first one AA could go to Scotus asking for a retrial due to trial error due to court relying on non-existent evidence.

 

[brycejones]

Reed O’Connor - fuck that guy

 

[Brainonska511]

Supreme Court might actually side with ACC on this one if the pro-ACC people give a clever response such as the ruling involving pro-religious groups is too broad.
The first one AA could go to Scotus asking for a retrial due to trial error due to court relying on non-existent evidence.

Yes, I could see them going the Hobby Lobby route with the ACA case. But that's bad news for everyone else, since a lot of preventive care coverage derives from recommendations provided by USPSTF.

Some people just want to really bring back the good old days of insurance.

 

[brycejones]

Yes, I could see them going the Hobby Lobby route with the ACA case. But that's bad news for everyone else, since a lot of preventive care coverage derives from recommendations provided by USPSTF.

Some people just want to really bring back the good old days of insurance.

The “ checks notes” pro life party once again advocates for policy choices that would result in more death and suffering.

Only godless people of low moral character get HIV.

 

[dainthomas]

The “ checks notes” pro life party once again advocates for policy choices that would result in more death and suffering.

Only godless people of low moral character get HIV.

Mike Pence approves.

 

[K1052]

because a) religious groups* should be able to opt-out of laws they don't like

*Offer only valid for white Evangelicals. Brown heathen religions may not apply.

 

[fskimospy]

Supreme Court might actually side with ACC on this one if the pro-ACC people give a clever response such as the ruling involving pro-religious groups is too broad.
The first one AA could go to Scotus asking for a retrial due to trial error due to court relying on non-existent evidence.

I'm not super hopeful because as other people mentioned current SCOTUS jurisprudence is basically that religious people don't have to follow any laws they don't like.

I remember when they struck down the contraceptive mandate they did it the first time because they said the government didn't use the least coercive method possible, like asking the nuns against contraception to fill out a form stating their objection. So... the government went back and changed their procedure to EXACTLY WHAT SCOTUS HELD OUT AS AN EXAMPLE. What was the result? That was struck down too for a new reason.

These are not serious people. It's all Calvinball.

 

[fskimospy]

I do appreciate that O'Connor has expanded his purview from controlling US immigration policy to now running investment firms though. Truly a renaissance man.

 

[MrSquished]

that guy is a pure evil soulless ghoul. the world would be a better place without him.

 

[Brainonska511]

that guy is a pure evil soulless ghoul. the world would be a better place without him.

I'd settle for him not being on the bench.

 

[trenchfoot]

With Trump and his rich buddies ruling the roost this all is just a sampling taste of what's to come.