Tom Stewart Lee
How Judge Lee rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Lee no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Lee
Tom Stewart Lee served as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi and later held senior status. He assumed inactive status on June 26, 2026.
How Judge Lee decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Canon v. Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning, Lee dismissed the state board from a former university employee's Title VII suit. He found that the single-employer and joint-employer theories did not make the board the plaintiff's employer and that the plaintiff had not named the board in his EEOC charges.
“given that the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly expressed the view that these theories do not apply to governmental subdivisions, this court finds that IHL cannot be found to be an ‘employer’ under either the single employer or joint employer test.”
In Origin Bank v. Haven Campus Communities-Starkville, LLC, he granted summary judgment on the guarantors' liability but stayed the amount owed for further evidence and argument.
“The motion is granted as to defendants' liability under their guaranty agreement and the motion is stayed, in part, so that the parties may submit further evidence and argument on the issue of the amount of defendants' liability.”
In Beneficial National Bank, U.S.A. v. Payton, he compelled arbitration after finding that the mailed cardholder amendment became part of the consumer's agreement when the consumer did not exercise the stated right to reject it.
“the arbitration provision contained in Beneficial’s 1996 Notice to Cardholders became part of Payton’s contract with Beneficial.”
Procedural preferences
In Blaylock v. Mosley, Lee adopted an unopposed magistrate-judge recommendation after the objection deadline passed and denied the prisoner's habeas petition.
“Pro se petitioner Larry James Blaylock has failed to file an objection and the time for doing so has since expired. Having considered the report and recommendation and the motion, the court concludes that it is well taken and should be adopted as the opinion of this court.”
In Gonzalez-Colon v. Strong, Lee adopted an unopposed recommendation that resolved claims against different defendants differently. He dismissed the claims against Scott and Strong without prejudice, the claim against Chambers with prejudice, and the claim against Martiner without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
“plaintiff's claims against defendants Scott and Strong are dismissed without prejudice, that his claims against defendant Chambers are dismissed with prejudice and that plaintiff's claims against Dr. Unknown Martiner are dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to prosecute”
In Bridges v. Freese, Lee dismissed a multi-plaintiff diversity suit because no plaintiff established an amount in controversy above $75,000. He considered each plaintiff's claimed compensatory loss and accepted that Mississippi punitive damages could be aggregated, but found the record insufficient to support a punitive award large enough to meet the threshold.
“the court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, it is ordered that defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.”
Cautions
In United States v. Brown, Lee examined trial evidence about absentee-ballot collection and Brown's recruitment of notaries. He found that Brown's corporation had paid application fees for more than fifty prospective notaries, while noting that funding lawful notary work alone was not improper.
“Although not a candidate, Ike Brown was plainly heavily involved in an absentee ballot program. The uncontroverted evidence showed that from 1999 to 2004, but principally in late 2002 and 2003, a corporation owned by Brown, RMB Enterprises, paid the notary application fees of more than fifty persons, nearly all of them residents of Noxubee County.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's habeas corpus petition is denied.”
“In conclusion, based on all of the foregoing, the court concludes that IHL's motion to dismiss is well taken. Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion is granted.”
“plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied”
“the government's motion to affirm is granted, such that the action will be dismissed with prejudice”
“each of the following motions is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiff James Alexander's federal claims”
“plaintiff James Alexander's ‘Motion for Relief’ is denied”
“the various motions to strike plaintiff's ‘Motion for Relief’ are denied as moot”
“defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and that plaintiff's claims against defendants Scott and Strong are dismissed without prejudice, that his claims against defendant Chambers are dismissed with prejudice and that plaintiff's claims against Dr. Unknown Martiner are dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to prosecute”
“The motion is granted as to defendants' liability under their guaranty agreement and the motion is stayed, in part, so that the parties may submit further evidence and argument on the issue of the amount of defendants' liability.”
“Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.”
“it is ordered that defendants' motion to dismiss and their alternative request to transfer and/or consolidate are denied.”
“defendant's motion to dismiss is denied”
“plaintiffs' motion for an order compelling arbitration pursuant to Section 4 of the FAA and their accompanying request pursuant to Section 3 of the FAA for an order staying litigation by defendant against them pending binding arbitration are granted.”
“the court, having considered the memoranda of authorities, together with attachments, submitted by the parties, concludes that defendant's motions should be denied, and that Bank One's motion should be granted, for reasons that follow.”
“Accordingly, it is ordered that defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“it is ordered that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is denied, and that defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff's claim under the ADA, and her claims for negligence, and for negligent infliction of emotional distress. It is ordered that defendant's motion is denied as to plaintiff's claims under the Rehabilitation Act and for breach of contract.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Of the 13 sampled dockets, several (Mills v. AXIS Insurance, McLeod v. Ethicon, Higginbotham v. Madison Community Care Center via stipulated dismissal) ended by summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings, or stipulated/agreed dismissal without a quotable retained order; Origin Bank v. Haven Campus Communities-Starkville produced a lengthy contested guaranty-liability dispute over an 18-month life.
- Two 2024-filed cases (LAD (Aviation), Inc. v. Booker and Wells v. TK Elevator) remain pending; Booker was later consolidated with a related, earlier-filed case.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 2 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Lee no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.