Don R. Willett

How Judge Willett rules, drawn from 58 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Donald Trump (Republican)
Commissioned
2018-01-02
ABA rating
Well Qualified
Education
Baylor University (B.B.A., economics/finance/public administration, 1988); Duke University School of Law (J.D., with honors, 1992); Duke University (M.A., political science, 1992); Duke University School of Law (LL.M., 2016)
Signed orders read
58

How Judge Willett decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He distinguishes an agency's authority to communicate information from authority to give advice the governing statute does not authorize.

“FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise.”

He treats the rule of orderliness as a command to follow on-point controlling precedent rather than an isolated decision that conflicts with it.

“Orderliness, rightly understood, compels deference, not defiance. And disregarding on-point precedent in favor of an aberrational decision flouting that precedent is the antithesis of orderliness.”

He reads an older sanctions statute according to the property interests it actually reaches and leaves expansion to Congress when modern technology falls outside that text.

“Until then, we hold that Tornado Cash’s immutable smart contracts (the lines of privacy-enabling software code) are not the ‘property’ of a foreign national or entity, meaning (1) they cannot be blocked under IEEPA, and (2) OFAC overstepped its congressionally defined authority.”

For associational standing, he requires a member to identify a concrete injury tied to the specific challenged project rather than a generalized concern.

“Such allegations can establish standing only when a member identifies a concrete, project-specific interest impaired by the challenged agency action.”

When reviewing an agency's enforcement action, Willett starts with the text the agency actually adopted. Even an important regulatory objective did not permit the agency to replace the regulation's knowledge and professional-practice standards with stricter ones of its own making.

“But even the most urgent regulatory goals do not permit an agency to depart from the regulations it has adopted while claiming to enforce them.”

In a Title VII appeal, Willett treated constructive discharge and the effect of a performance plan as fact-dependent questions when the parties offered competing explanations. A summary-judgment record should connect workplace remarks and performance measures to the challenged action and the employee's decision to leave.

“She argues that she endured intolerable conditions that caused her resignation, but the City asserts that Liedtke’s documented underperformance was the basis for her resignation. A reasonable jury could credit either account.”

Procedural preferences

Before approving class counsel's fee request, he requires notice that gives class members a reasonable opportunity to object.

“Because the district court abused its discretion when it awarded fees without providing notice to class members as mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), we VACATE and REMAND for further proceedings.”

Willett ordinarily preserves an opportunity for a self-represented litigant to cure pleading defects. A dismissal with prejudice requires either an adequate prior chance to fix the problem or a record showing that the litigant has already pleaded the best available case.

“When dismissing a pro se complaint, a district court ordinarily should do so ‘without prejudice in order to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint,’ unless ‘the plaintiff has [already] been given adequate opportunity to cure the inadequacies in his pleading[s] or if the pleadings demonstrate that the plaintiff has pleaded his best case.’”

When a special verdict contains apparently inconsistent answers, Willett first requires a genuine effort to reconcile them. If liability and causation findings cannot be reconciled, the verdict cannot stand and a new trial is required.

“Before ordering a new trial, though, ‘we must make a concerted effort to reconcile apparent inconsistencies if at all possible.’”

Cautions

For a residential search warrant, Willett requires a case-specific link between the place to be searched and the evidence sought. Generalized assumptions about where people keep possessions cannot substitute for facts anchoring that inference to the investigation.

“The Constitution requires that those inferences be anchored in case-specific circumstances, not in generalized assumptions about what ‘most people’ might do.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Escobedo v. Ace Gathering, Inc.
23-20494 · 2024-07-31
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“In sum, we hold that the Crude Haulers transport property 'in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act.' We accordingly REVERSE the district court's denial of summary judgment and REMAND with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.”

S.K.A.V., L.L.C. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Co.
23-30293 · 2024-06-05
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“This appeal raises a question of state law on which federal district courts in Louisiana disagree: Does Sec. 22:868 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes void an arbitration provision in a contract for surplus lines insurance? We venture an Erie guess and answer 'yes.' ... The judgment of the district court is accordingly AFFIRMED.”

First United Pentecostal Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Co.
23-30779 · 2024-10-17
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“First United says CM's handling of its claim breached the insurance contract and various Louisiana insurance statutes. The district court agreed and, following a bench trial, awarded damages plus statutory penalties, attorney fees, and costs. CM appealed. We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.”

United States v. Wilson
23-50509 · 2024-08-01
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“He appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing that (1) his conviction for firearm possession by a felon violates the Second Amendment, and (2) the district court erred in applying [the sentencing enhancements] ... We AFFIRM.”

United States v. Wilkerson
23-50626 · 2024-12-30
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“On appeal, Wilkerson argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and (2) the jury was improperly instructed. We disagree and AFFIRM his convictions.”

Edwards v. City of Balch Springs
22-10269 · 2023-06-09
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We follow a different line of reasoning in some respects, but we agree that the district court reached the result that our precedent requires, and we therefore AFFIRM.”

Shaw v. Villanueva
918 F.3d 414 · 2019-03-11
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“The issue is simply stated: Did the district court err in denying qualified immunity to Villanueva and Ebrom? We answer yes given the bare-bones nature of Shaw's allegations. ... We REVERSE.”

Blake v. Lambert
18-60176 · 2019-04-05
Appeal (appellant) Granted in part

“We AFFIRM as to the Malley claim because the affidavit lacked any facts to establish probable cause. But we REVERSE as to the Franks claim because it is incompatible with a Malley theory.”

Reed v. Taylor
17-20519 · 2019-05-02
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“Criminalizing a sexually violent predator's failure to pay for GPS monitoring is not ‘other legal process’ under Sec. 407(a). The district court correctly interpreted the anti-attachment provision; the Texas officials are entitled to qualified immunity; and we AFFIRM.”

United States v. Ayelotan
17-60397 · 2019-03-04
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The district court committed no error, and we AFFIRM in all respects.”

United States v. Rivas-Estrada
17-40033 · 2018-10-12
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“We VACATE in part Rivas-Estrada's sentence and REMAND for the district court to amend its written judgment by removing the three unpronounced special conditions.”

Thompson v. Dallas City Attorney's Office
913 F.3d 464 · 2019-01-11
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“All to say, on-point res judicata precedent bars this suit. We AFFIRM.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges do not manage an assigned federal trial docket in their appellate role. Willett previously served on the Supreme Court of Texas.

Draft for Judge Willett with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Willett, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Willett's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace