Skip to main content

Trump-Appointed Judge Not Feeling Fired Texas Lawyer’s Meritless ‘Gondor Has No King’ Lawsuit


If you’ve been reading Law&Crime these past few weeks, you already know that Texas lawyer Paul Davis was fired from his job the day after he recorded himself at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and self-reported that he was tear gassed. Davis then filed a, uh, remarkable lawsuit that declared Donald Trump’s impeachment “null and void.” Not long after that, Davis and his co-counsel leaned heavily on Lord of the Rings references—asserting “Gondor Has No King” in an attempt to bolster the claim that the entire 117th Congress and Joe Biden presidency are “illegitimate” and should, therefore, be barred from conducting business as usual. Finally, Davis admitted that sleep-deprivation and a “massive sewage backup” may have clouded his judgment. On Wednesday, a Trump-appointed federal judge finally responded to all of the foregoing. In short, U.S. District Judge Alan Albright appears likely to flush the entire bowl of litigation out to sea—where, as they say, the “morning toast . . . floats along” (if you get my drift).

Albright did not have positive things to say about Davis’s core argument on behalf of plaintiffs Latinos for Trump and Blacks for Trump. Davis contends that the 2020 election somehow violated the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), entitling Davis to unprecedented relief—such as a judicially ordered creation of an entirely new system of government. (You can read what he had to say about that here.)

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, named as defendants: Pete Sessions, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mark Zuckerberg, Chuck Schumer, Brad Raffensperger, “all current so-called members of the 117th Congress of the United States,” and “all the state governors and secretaries of state.”

Most importantly, Judge Albright has already found that Davis’s claims are “without merit”:

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are without merit, because the federal statute under which they seek relief do not permit them to sue Defendants to restrain Defendants from “participating in any action relating to the process of electing public officials, holding public office or any official government position, or position in any partisan enterprise related to American politics, and from defaming or threatening or otherwise interfering with the life, liberty, or property of Plaintiffs.” Pls.’ Compl. Plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face under either the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) or § 1983.

The judge explained that, first, HAVA “does not provide the declaratory relief” Davis seeks. Secondly, Judge Albright said “[42 USC] § 1983, even if used to assert any potential right under HAVA, does not apply to federal officers, such as members of the 117th U.S. Congress, who act under federal law, and thus relief is not available under this statute.”

The judge ordered Davis and his co-counsel to “show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim.”

Davis was given until Feb. 10 to fix his complaint or else face dismissal.

Read the 4-page document below:

[Image of Paul Davis via Roger Sollenberger/Twitter]

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:

Follow Law&Crime:

Matt Naham is the Senior A.M. Editor of Law&Crime.