Don Willett On Abortion

Willett Upheld Texas’s Extreme Abortion Ban

Willett Upheld A Texas Law Banning A Common Abortion Method For Second-Trimester Pregnancies

Willett Joined Colleagues And Upheld A Texas Law Banning A Common Abortion Method For Second-Trimester Pregnancies. According to the Associated Press, “A Texas law outlawing an abortion method commonly used to end second-trimester pregnancies has been upheld by a federal appeals court in New Orleans. […] A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of the law last year. But Texas was granted a re-hearing by the full court, and a majority of the 14 appellate judges who heard arguments in January (three of the court’s 17 active judges were recused) sided with Texas on Wednesday. The opinion, by judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Don Willett, said ‘he record shows that doctors can safely perform D&Es and comply with SB8 using methods that are already in widespread use.’” [Associated Press, 8/19/21]

Willett Called The Procedure “Barbaric”

Willett Called The Procedure “Barbaric.” According to the ABA Journal, “Judge Don Willett of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans has made clear his distaste for the most common second-trimester abortion procedure in a dissent filed last week. Willett graphically described what he sees as a ‘barbaric’ second-trimester dilation-and-evacuation abortions while criticizing the majority for using language that is ‘camouflaging things in anodyne, sanitizing abstractions.’” [ABA Journal, 10/26/20]

Don Willett On Gender

Willett Opposed Equality Between Sexes

1998: Willett Wrote A Memo Which Expressed Antipathy To Women’s Rights in the Workplace

1998: Willett Wrote A Memo Expressed Antipathy To Women’s Rights in the Workplace. According to the Texas Tribune, “Willett also faced backlash for a 1998 memo he wrote as a staffer in the office of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush. In that document, he advised Bush to revise a proclamation he planned to issue in honor of the Texas Federation of Business and Professional Women because Willett ‘resisted the proclamation’s talk of glass ceilings, pay equity (an allegation that some studies debunk)… and the need generally for better working conditions for women (read: more government).’” [Texas Tribune, 11/15/17]

In The Memo, Willett Opposed The Declaration Of Business Women’s Week In Texas

In The Memo, Willett Opposed The Declaration Of Business Women’s Week In Texas. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “During your confirmation hearing, Ranking Member Feinstein asked you about a memo you wrote while working in then-Governor George W. Bush’s office, opposing a proclamation declaring ‘Business Women’s Week.’” [Senate Judiciary Committee, accessed 6/27/24]

Willett Said He Opposed Talk Of “Glass Ceilings” For Women In Business

Willett Said He Opposed Talk Of “Glass Ceilings” For Women In Business. According to the Texas Tribune, “Willett also faced backlash for a 1998 memo he wrote as a staffer in the office of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush. In that document, he advised Bush to revise a proclamation he planned to issue in honor of the Texas Federation of Business and Professional Women because Willett ‘resisted the proclamation’s talk of glass ceilings, pay equity (an allegation that some studies debunk)… and the need generally for better working conditions for women (read: more government).’” [Texas Tribune, 11/15/17]

Willett Argued That Some Studies Debunked Pay Equity

Willett Argued That Some Studies Debunked Pay Equity. According to the Texas Tribune, “Willett also faced backlash for a 1998 memo he wrote as a staffer in the office of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush. In that document, he advised Bush to revise a proclamation he planned to issue in honor of the Texas Federation of Business and Professional Women because Willett ‘resisted the proclamation’s talk of glass ceilings, pay equity (an allegation that some studies debunk)… and the need generally for better working conditions for women (read: more government).’” [Texas Tribune, 11/15/17]

Willett Wrote That He Opposed Outside Childcare

Willett Wrote That He Opposed Outside Childcare. According to a memo written by Don Willett, “I resist the proclamation’s talk of ‘glass ceilings,’ pay equity (an allegation that some studies debunk), the need to place kids in the care of rented strangers, sexual discrimination/harassment, and the need generally for better ‘working conditions’ for women (read: more government).” [Ken Herman, “Bush advisor’s memo critical of women’s issues,” Austin American-Statesman, 7/15/00]

Willett Opposed The Declaration Of Business Women’s Week Due To Its Mention of Sexual Discrimination And Harassment

Willett Opposed The Declaration Of Business Women’s Week’ Due To Its Mention of Sexual Discrimination And Harassment. According to a memo written by Don Willett, “I resist the proclamation’s talk of ‘glass ceilings,’ pay equity (an allegation that some studies debunk), the need to place kids in the care of rented strangers, sexual discrimination/harassment, and the need generally for better ‘working conditions’ for women (read: more government).” [Ken Herman, “Bush advisor’s memo critical of women’s issues,” Austin American-Statesman, 7/15/00]

Don Willett On His Biases

Willett Boasted About His Conservative Judicial Bias

Willett: “I’m Universally Regarded To Be The Most Conservative Member Of The Court, Which Is A Label That I Accept With, Frankly, Gladness And Gusto”

Willett: “I’m Universally Regarded To Be The Most Conservative Member Of The Court, Which Is A Label That I Accept With, Frankly, Gladness And Gusto.” According to the Daily Beast, “Willett himself has boasted in 2012 that ‘I’ve built a record that is widely described – well, universally described—as the most conservative of anybody on the [Texas] Supreme Court. I’ve garnered support from every corner of the conservative movement. There’s no ideological daylight to the right of me… I’m universally regarded to be the most conservative member of the court, which is a label that I accept with, frankly, gladness and gusto.’” [Daily Beast, 11/16/17]

Willett: “There’s No Ideological Daylight To The Right Of Me”

Willett: “There’s No Ideological Daylight To The Right Of Me.” According to the Daily Beast, “Willett himself has boasted in 2012 that ‘I’ve built a record that is widely described – well, universally described—as the most conservative of anybody on the [Texas] Supreme Court. I’ve garnered support from every corner of the conservative movement. There’s no ideological daylight to the right of me… I’m universally regarded to be the most conservative member of the court, which is a label that I accept with, frankly, gladness and gusto.’” [Daily Beast, 11/16/17]

Willett: “I’ve Garnered Support From Every Corner Of The Conservative Movement”

Willett: “I’ve Garnered Support From Every Corner Of The Conservative Movement.” According to the Daily Beast, “I’ve garnered support from every corner of the conservative movement.” [Daily Beast, 11/16/17]

Don Willett On The Affordable Care Act

Willett Opposed The Affordable Care Act

Willett Embraced Abbott And Opposed The Affordable Care Act

Willett Was Said To Have Praised Greg Abbott “For Leading The Fight Against Obamacare.” According to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, “Echoing the sentiment expressed in his Robinson concurrence, Justice Willett criticized the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in remarks he made in January 2012, months before the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA. According to a news account: ‘Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett, speaking before [Texas Attorney General] Abbott, praised the attorney general for leading the fight against ‘Obamacare.’ Willett said a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the law would destroy the notion of limited federal powers. ‘Government will have carte blanche to control every sphere of your everyday life,’ Willett said.’” [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 11/14/17]

VIDEO: Willett Claimed In A Campaign Ad That Greg Abbott Said Willett Was “The Judicial Remedy To Obamacare.” According to Justice Don Willett’s Commercial on YouTube, “NARRATOR: Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett is widely hailed as our most conservative justice. Conservative leaders even describe Don Willett as the judicial remedy to Obamacare, drafting the legal roadmap to reign in big government. Don Willett helped defend the right of Texas to display the Ten Commandments and fought the liberals who tried to remove the words ‘Under God’ from our Pledge.” [Justice Don Willett’s Commercial via YouTube, 5/7/12]

Willett Supposedly Said That If The Supreme Court Upheld The Affordable Care Act, “The Law Would Destroy The Notion Of Limited Federal Powers”

Willett Supposedly Said That If The Supreme Court Upheld The Affordable Care Act, “The Law Would Destroy The Notion Of Limited Federal Powers.” According to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, “Echoing the sentiment expressed in his Robinson concurrence, Justice Willett criticized the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in remarks he made in January 2012, months before the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA. According to a news account: “Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett, speaking before [Texas Attorney General] Abbott, praised the attorney general for leading the fight against ‘Obamacare.’ Willett said a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the law would destroy the notion of limited federal powers. ‘Government will have carte blanche to control every sphere of your everyday life,’ Willett said.’” [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 11/14/17]

Willett Wrote That Chief Justice John Roberts “Entrenched His Legacy” By Upholding The Affordable Care Act. According to an opinion piece written by Justice Willett in the Chron, “Until 10:07 a.m. last Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts had never joined the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberal bloc in a 5-4 case. He picked a doozy, and entrenched his legacy – a signature judicial pronouncement upholding a signature presidential priority. In the most momentous ruling since Bush v. Gore, the Court upheld the 2,471-page law overhauling one-sixth of the economy. Conservatives lost the short-term battle as a policy matter – Obamacare lives (for now) – but they may win the long-term war as a constitutional matter.” [Chron – Opinion by Justice Don Willett, 6/29/12]

Don Willett On Regulations

Willett Opposed Government Regulations

Willett Wrote That Robinson v. Crown Corks & Seal Co. Taught “A Vital Lesson About Diminished Liberty Stemming From Government Overreaching”

In His Opinion, Willett Expressed His Hatred For What He Deemed As Government Overreach

In His Opinion, Willett Expressed His Hatred For What He Deemed As Government Overreach. According to the concurring opinion in Robinson v. Crown Corks & Seal Co. written by Justice Willett, “Judges are properly deferential to legislative judgments in most matters, but at some epochal point, when police power becomes a convenient talisman waved to short-circuit our constitutional design, deference devolves into dereliction. The Legislature’s policymaking power may be vast, but absent a convincing public-welfare showing, its police power cannot be allowed to uproot liberties enshrined in our Constitution.” [FindLaw, accessed 6/26/24]

Willett Wrote That Robinson v. Crown Corks & Seal Co. Taught “A Vital Lesson About Diminished Liberty Stemming From Government Overreaching”

Willett Wrote That Robinson v. Crown Corks & Seal Co. Taught “A Vital Lesson About Diminished Liberty Stemming From Government Overreaching.” According to the concurring opinion in Robinson v. Crown Corks & Seal Co. written by Justice Willett, “Every case that reaches this Court concerns real people buffeted by real problems in the real world. This dispute, however, possesses a transcendent quality, touching not only these parties but also building-block constitutional principles that belong to all Texans. In that sense, it affords a whetstone on which to sharpen our thinking on some bedrock notions of government and how the Texas Constitution assigns democratic responsibilities. More to the point, it teaches a vital lesson about diminished liberty stemming from government overreaching: The Legislature’s police power cannot go unpoliced.” [FindLaw, accessed 6/26/24]

Robinson v. Crown Corks & Seal Co. Held A Statue That Limited Corporate Successor Liability Violated Texas’s Constitutional Prohibition Against Retroactive Laws

Robinson v. Crown Corks & Seal Co. Held A Statue That Limited Corporate Successor Liability Violated Texas’s Constitutional Prohibition Against Retroactive Laws. According to Casetext, “Robinson v. Cork Summary: Holding a statute that limited corporate successor liability for asbestos-related claims, as applied, violated the state constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws.” [Casetext, accessed 6/26/24]

Willett Joined The Majority In Striking Down The Tort Reform Law As Unconstitutionally Retroactive

Willett Joined The Majority In Striking Down The Tort Reform Law As Unconstitutionally Retroactive. According to Vlex, “Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Willett, and Justice Lehrmann joined. […] The issue we address in this case is whether a statute that limits certain corporations’ successor liability for personal injury claims of asbestos exposure violates the prohibition against retroactive laws contained in Article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution1 as applied to a pending action. We hold that it does, and therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the trial court.” [Vlex, accessed 6/27/24

Willett Wrote The Concurring Opinion Which Struck Down A Texas Statute, Citing “Preposterous” Regulatory Requirements For Eyebrow Threading

Willett Wrote The Concurring Opinion Which Struck Down A Texas Statute, Citing “Preposterous” Regulatory Requirements For Eyebrow Threading. According to Governing, “One of the justices, Don Willett, who has served on the court since 2005, went much further. The state’s regulatory requirements were not just extreme, he concluded, but ‘preposterous.’ To pursue the low-paying job, prospective eyebrow threaders had to pay thousands of dollars in fees and were required to complete more than five times as many hours of initial training as emergency medical technicians. ‘If these rules are not arbitrary,’ Willett wrote in a concurring opinion, ‘then the definition of ‘arbitrary’ is itself arbitrary.’ Willett’s concurrence in the case, Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, has been hailed as one of the most important conservative opinions of recent years.” [Governing, 7/26/17]

Patel v. Texas Department Of Licensing & Regulation Ruled That Texas’s Licensing Requirements For Commercial Eyebrow Threading Were Oppressively Burdensome

Patel v. Texas Department Of Licensing & Regulation Ruled That Texas’s Licensing Requirements For Commercial Eyebrow Threading Were Oppressively Burdensome. According to Justia, “Certain provisions of the Texas Occupations Code and Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation rules promulgated pursuant to that Code require eyebrow threaders to undergo 750 hours of training in order to obtain a license before practicing commercial threading. Plaintiffs, several individuals practicing commercial eyebrow threading and the salon owners employing them, filed this declaratory judgment action asserting that, as applied to them, Texas’s licensing statutes and regulations violate the state Constitution’s due course of law provision. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the number of hours required for a license to practice commercial eyebrow threading are not related to health or safety or to what threaders actually do. The trial court granted summary judgment for the State. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the large number of required hours that are not arguably related to the actual practice of threading, the associated costs of those hours, and the delayed employment opportunities while taking the hours make the licensing requirements as a whole reach the level of being so burdensome that they are oppressive in light of the governmental interest.” [Justia, accessed 6/26/24]

Governing: Willett’s Concurring Opinion Had “Been Hailed As One Of The Most Important Conservative Opinions Of Recent Years”

Governing: Willett’s Concurring Opinion Had “Been Hailed As One Of The Most Important Conservative Opinions Of Recent Years.” According to Governing, “Willett’s concurrence in the case, Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, has been hailed as one of the most important conservative opinions of recent years. It was expansive enough to trigger talk about reviving a judicial approach to regulation that has lain dormant for decades. It’s one of the main reasons Willett’s name appeared on President Trump’s short list for the U.S. Supreme Court.” [Governing, 7/26/17]

Don Willett On LGBTQ Rights

Willett Was Anti-LGBTQ

Willett Attended An Event Held By The Texas Restoration Project Whose Speakers Were Said To “Gay-Bash”

The Texas Restoration Project Sponsored An Event Attended By Hundreds Of Texas Ministers And Their Spouses

The Texas Restoration Project Sponsored An Event Attended By Hundreds Of Texas Ministers And Their Spouses. According to the Austin Chronicle, “Politics and religion worked together in mysterious ways last week, as several hundred Texas ministers and their spouses were treated to upscale banquet fare, an overnight stay at the Austin Hilton, musical entertainment, and a chance to hear Gov. Rick Perry reiterate his support for legislating morality […] The Texas Restoration Project, a fledgling but well-oiled group of conservative religious leaders, sponsored the event, the second in a series of briefings planned throughout the state, but the TRP says only that ‘private funds’ make the events possible. The Texas Restoration Project does not appear to be registered as a nonprofit group or as a political action committee, which would be required to disclose campaign finance activity to the Texas Ethics Commission.” [Austin Chronicle, 9/2/05]

The Texas Restoration Project Was Credited As Being “Instrumental In Passage Of The State Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage”

The Texas Restoration Project Was Credited As Being “Instrumental In Passage Of The State Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage.” According to My Plainview, “The Texas Restoration Project, which also was instrumental in passage of the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, at the time would not divulge the source of its money.” [My Plainview, 1/9/08]

Willett Attended The Event Sponsored By The Texas Restoration Project

Willett Attended The Event. According to the Austin Chronicle, “Kelly Shackelford, who heads the Plano-based Free Market Foundation, may have stolen Perry’s thunder in being the first to announce the governor’s choice to fill the vacancy on the Texas Supreme Court – Don Willett, who was seated in the audience.” [Austin Chronicle, 9/2/05]

Austin Chronicle: “Though The Audiotape Is Of Poor Quality, There Is No Mistaking The Fever-Pitched Gay-Bashing Theme Of Most Of The Speeches”

Austin Chronicle: “Though The Audiotape Is Of Poor Quality, There Is No Mistaking The Fever-Pitched Gay-Bashing Theme Of Most Of The Speeches.” According to the Austin Chronicle, “Though the audiotape is of poor quality, there is no mistaking the fever-pitched gay-bashing theme of most of the speeches.” [Austin Chronicle, 9/2/05]

Willett Joined The Majority In Ruling That City Employees Who Were Married In Other States Did Not Have Any Automatic Rights To Benefits In The State Of Texas

Willett Ruled With The Majority In Pidgeon v. Turner

Willett Ruled With The Majority In Pidgeon v. Turner. According to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, “Justice Willett was part of a Texas Supreme Court majority in Pidgeon v. Turner that held in June 2017 that city employees who were married in other states did not have any automatic rights to benefits, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 holding in Obergefell v. Hodges.” [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 11/14/17]

The Texas Supreme Court Decided In Pidgeon v. Turner That Houston City Employees Who Were Married To Someone Of The Same Sex In Other States Did Not Have Any Automatic Rights To Benefits In The State Of Texas

The Texas Supreme Court Decided In Pidgeon v. Turner That Houston City Employees Who Were Married To Someone Of The Same Sex In Other States Did Not Have Any Automatic Rights To Benefits In The State Of Texas. According to Justia, “In 2013, the Mayor of Houston directed that same-sex spouses of employees who have been legally married in another jurisdiction be afforded the same benefits as spouses of a heterosexual marriage. Plaintiffs, Houston taxpayers and voters, filed suit against the City and its Mayor challenging the Mayor’s directive authorizing expenditures and the City’s provision of benefits pursuant to that directive. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that the Mayor’s directive authorizing the expenditures violated Texas’s and the City’s defense of marriage acts. The trial court granted a temporary injunction prohibiting the Mayor from furnishing benefits to persons who were married in other jurisdictions to City employees of the same sex. While Defendants’ interlocutory appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges, __ U.S. __ (2015) that states may not exclude same sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples. The court of appeals subsequently reversed the temporary injunction and remanded the case. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment, vacated the trial court’s orders and remanded, holding that the court’s opinion and judgment imposed greater restrictions on remand the Obergefell and this court’s precedent required.” [Justia, accessed 6/26/24]

Don Willett On Voting Rights

Willett Defended Texas From Claims of Voting Rights Act Violations

While Working In The Texas Attorney General’s Office, Willett Asked The U.S. Supreme Court To Dismiss A Complaint Alleging The Voting Rights Act Had Been Violated

While Working In The Texas Attorney General’s Office, Willett Drafted A Brief Asking The U.S. Supreme Court To Dismiss A Complaint Filed By 11 Texas State Senators Who Alleged The Voting Rights Act Had Been Violated. According to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, “When he worked in the Texas Attorney General’s office from 2003-2005, Mr. Willett participated in two voting rights cases in which he defended Texas from claims of Voting Rights Act violations. In Barrientos v. Texas, he drafted a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a lower court decision that dismissed a complaint filed by 11 state senators who alleged that the Voting Rights Act had been violated when the Texas legislature passed a second congressional redistricting plan after the 2000 Census. The Supreme Court did affirm the lower court.” [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 11/14/17]

Barrientos v. Texas Was Brought On By 11 Texas State Senators Against The State Of Texas, Its Governor, And Lieutenant Governor, For Violating The Voting Rights Act

Barrientos v. Texas Was Brought On By 11 Texas State Senators Against The State Of Texas, Its Governor, And Lieutenant Governor, For Violating The Voting Rights Act. According to Casemine, “Barrientos v. Texas […] The action was brought by eleven Texas State Senators against: the State of Texas, its Governor, and Lieutenant Governor, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under subsection 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act (‘the Act’). The complaint primarily attacks two events: first, the decision by the state legislature to consider congressional redistricting legislation this year, notwithstanding that a redistricting plan has already been implemented this decade; second, the declaration by the Lieutenant Governor that redistricting legislation would be considered in a special session without adhering to the so-called ‘1/3rd Rule.’” [Casemine, accessed 6/26/24]

The Motion To Dismiss Claims Under The Voting Rights Act Was Granted By the Supreme Court

The Motion To Dismiss Claims Under The Voting Rights Act Was Granted By the Supreme Court. According to Casemine, “The motion to dismiss claims under the Voting Rights Act is GRANTED.” [Casemine, accessed 6/26/24]

The Supreme Court Dismissed Claims That The First, Fourteenth And Fifteenth Amendments Were Violated

The Supreme Court Dismissed Claims That The First, Fourteenth And Fifteenth Amendments Were Violated. According to Casemine, “We also DISMISS claims under 42 U.S.C 1983 insofar as Plaintiffs claim that the State’s decision consider redistricting legislation and the failure to adhere to the ‘2/3rd Rule’ violate the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” [Casemine, accessed 6/26/24]

Willett Defended A Texas Redistricting Plan The Supreme Court Found To Have Violated The Voting Rights Act

Willett Assisted In Trial Preparations To Challenge The Texas Congressional Redistricting Plan. According to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, “In Session v. Perry, Mr. Willett assisted with trial preparation in another challenge to the Texas congressional redistricting plan. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down one of the congressional districts because it diluted Latino voting power and violated the Voting Rights Act, but Mr. Willett had left the office by then and did not work on the Supreme Court briefing.” [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 11/14/17]

The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled That The Texas Legislature’s Redistricting Plan Did Not Violate The Constitution

The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled That The Texas Legislature’s Redistricting Plan Did Not Violate The Constitution. According to Oyez, “The Supreme Court held that the Texas Legislature’s redistricting plan did not violate the Constitution, but that part of the plan violated the Voting Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a majority of the justices, stated that District 23 had been redrawn in such a way as to deny Latino voters as a group the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choosing, thereby violating the Voting Rights Act. Justice Kennedy also wrote, however, that nothing in the Constitution prevented the state from redrawing its electoral boundaries as many times as it wanted, so long as it did so at least once every ten years.” [Oyez, accessed 6/26/24]

The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled That Part Of The Texas Legislature’s Redistricting Plan Did Violate The Voting Rights Act

The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled That Part Of The Texas Legislature’s Redistricting Plan Did Violate The Voting Rights Act. According to Oyez, “The Supreme Court held that the Texas Legislature’s redistricting plan did not violate the Constitution, but that part of the plan violated the Voting Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a majority of the justices, stated that District 23 had been redrawn in such a way as to deny Latino voters as a group the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choosing, thereby violating the Voting Rights Act. Justice Kennedy also wrote, however, that nothing in the Constitution prevented the state from redrawing its electoral boundaries as many times as it wanted, so long as it did so at least once every ten years.” [Oyez, accessed 6/26/24]

Don Willett On Affirmative Action

Willett Opposed Affirmative Action

Willett Praised The U.S. Court Of Appeals Decision In Hopwood v. Texas, Which Challenged Affirmative Action

Willett Praised The Decision In Hopwood v. Texas

Willett Praised The Decision In Hopwood v. Texas. According to an article written by Don Willett and T. Vance McMahan for the Stanford Law Review, “Hopwood has given Texas the chance to build a new vision based on affirmative opportunity for all instead of affirmative action for some.” [T. Vance McMahan & Don R. Willett, “Hope from Hopwood: Charting a Positive Civil Rights Course for Texas and the Nation,” Stanford Law & Policy Review, Spring 1999]

Hopwood v. Texas Ruled In Favor Of Four White Plaintiffs Who Challenged The Constitutionality Of Race-Conscious Criteria

Hopwood v. Texas Ruled In Favor Of Four White Plaintiffs Who Challenged The Constitutionality Of Race-Conscious Criteria. According to Ballotpedia, “Hopwood v. Texas was a case ruled upon by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1996. The appeals court held that the University of Texas School of Law could not use race as a factor in determining which applicants to admit to the university.” [Ballotpedia, accessed 6/26/24]

Willett Wrote That Affirmative Action Had Failed

Willett Wrote That Affirmative Action Had Failed. According to an article written by Don Willett and T. Vance McMahan for the Stanford Law Review, “The courts and the public have rightly recognized that conventional affirmative action has failed.” [T. Vance McMahan & Don R. Willett, “Hope from Hopwood: Charting a Positive Civil Rights Course for Texas and the Nation,” Stanford Law & Policy Review, Spring 1999]

Willett Argued “That The Vast Majority Of Minorities Are Not Held Back By Racial Bigotry”

Willett: “The Judgement Of History Is Clear That The Vast Majority Of Minorities Are Not Held Back By Racial Bigotry.” According to an article written by Don Willett and T. Vance McMahan for the Stanford Law Review, “The judgment of history is clear that the vast majority of minorities are not held back by racial bigotry, but by fractured families and poor K-12 schools that deny them the credentials required to enter elite social institutions.” [T. Vance McMahan & Don R. Willett, “Hope from Hopwood: Charting a Positive Civil Rights Course for Texas and the Nation,” Stanford Law & Policy Review, Spring 1999]

Don Willett On Church And State

Willett Defended The Display Of The Ten Commandments On The Texas State Capitol Grounds

Willett Defended The Display Of The Ten Commandments On The Texas State Capitol Grounds. According to Reuters, “Before becoming a judge, Willett was part of Texas’ legal team that won a Supreme Court battle to display the Ten Commandments on a monument in the state Capitol despite opponents’ concerns that it amounted to government endorsement of a religion.” [Reuters, 5/19/16]

Willett’s Legal Team Won The Case In Front Of The Supreme Court

Willett’s Legal Team Won The Case In Front Of The Supreme Court. According to Reuters, “Before becoming a judge, Willett was part of Texas’ legal team that won a Supreme Court battle to display the Ten Commandments on a monument in the state Capitol despite opponents’ concerns that it amounted to government endorsement of a religion.” [Reuters, 5/19/16]