On Friday, a federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump issued a ruling in favor of a Republican congressman suing President Joe Biden's administration over a foreign policy issue, and one legal expert is questioning the judge's competency.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas sided with Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) by striking down the Biden administration's motion to dismiss. In 2022, Jackson and other plaintiffs sued over federal funding of the United Nation's Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). The plaintiffs‚ notably assisted by the pro-Trump group America First Legal, cited a Trump-era law to justify the lawsuit that cuts U.S. funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which has jurisdiction over the Palestinian-controlled West Bank territory in Israel. UNRWA was recently named in another lawsuit alleging that the agency had knowledge that funds allocated for humanitarian aid in Gaza were being siphoned by Hamas — which controls Gaza — to finance terrorism.
Kacsmaryk — a Federalist Society alumnus who was appointed by Trump to the post in 2017 and confirmed in 2019 — ruled in the plaintiffs' favor under the argument that they "regularly visit Israel" and "faced an increased risk of harm" in the wake of Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
READ MORE: Trump's former White House doctor allegedly spent almost $20K in donor money at exclusive club
In a tweet criticizing the decision, Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis ripped the judge's argument in favor of the plaintiffs.
"Traveler’s Standing? This judge is verifiably off the rails," Kreis tweeted. He added an additional example to illustrate his characterization of Kacsmaryk's argument in a subsequent tweet.
"I love traveling to Australia," he wrote. "It’s good to know that if we ever stop our plan to provide them submarines, I can sue in a federal court in Texas to force the next administration’s hand."
While the Biden administration has the ability to appeal Kacsmaryk's ruling, that appeal would go the the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over all federal cases in Louisiana and Texas. The 5th Circuit is also packed with Republican judicial appointees and is regarded as one of the most conservative judicial circuits, meaning an appeal may not succeed. And if the administration fails to convince the 5th Circuit, then its only remaining appeal would be to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.
READ MORE: SCOTUS releases one-sentence decision banning drag shows at Texas college campus
The northern District of Texas-5th Circuit-Supreme Court pipeline has become increasingly popular for conservatives aiming to accomplish political goals in the judiciary (also known as "judge-shopping"). Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to overrule a 5th Circuit decision upholding a separate ruling by Kacsmaryk that banned drag shows at West Texas A&M University.
However, the Court has ruled against Kacsmaryk — the lone Amarillo-based judge Northern District of Texas — in a recent decision. Kacsmaryk was responsible for the decision overhauling the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion pill Mifepristone, which the Supreme Court reinstated earlier this month. The Brennan Center for Justice noted that Kacsmaryk is a favored judge-shopping target for conservatives given his reliably conservative record.
"[O]dds are high that he will issue a ruling just as you seek, one that imposes a highly conservative, indeed theocratic, worldview," the Brennan Center wrote of the judge in March. "He might even issue an injunction that purports to cover the entire country."
Click here to read Kacsmaryk's ruling in full.
READ MORE: Trump's former White House doctor caught lying about military rank — and he's still doing it
