Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk
How Judge Kacsmaryk decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Textualist/whole-statute administrative-law analysis: construes a statutory term in light of the entire scheme and subsequent legislation, gives Chevron deference to a reasonable agency construction, and treats an interpretive rule that 'merely clarifies' existing law as non-retroactive (so retroactivity/due-process challenges fail).
“if a PPP loan is granted to an ineligible borrower, that loan is not 'guaranteed under' 15 U.S.C. 636(a) because an ineligible borrower's loan is not 'in accordance with' or 'according to' the governing statutes ... The Loan Review IFR made no new law simply by reminding borrowers of that consequence.”
On Title VII retaliation he rigorously enforces each prima facie element on summary judgment: a paid suspension and an internal investigation are not 'materially adverse,' and the causation element fails unless the FINAL decisionmaker actually knew of the protected activity -- speculative 'influence' inferences do not suffice.
“If the final decisionmaker lacked knowledge of the employee's participation in protected activity, the retaliation claim cannot survive summary judgment. ... mere speculative assumptions regarding Burns's influence ... fall short.”
Applies the Texas Supreme Court's Austin v. Kroger rule strictly: a landowner/employer owes no duty to warn of open-and-obvious or already-known hazards, and where the injured employee is the only person working the area his knowledge is coextensive with the employer's.
“under Austin's general rule, Defendant had no duty to warn or make safe the dangerous conditions because Plaintiff knew of the condition.”
Procedural preferences
Will not credit summary-judgment testimony that flatly contradicts a party's own earlier sworn admissions ('sham affidavit'); and will hold a party to the claims actually pleaded in the complaint/EEOC charge, refusing new theories raised for the first time in a SJ response.
“The Court finds Plaintiff's testimony is so inconsistent that no reasonable juror could accept it.”
Construes Rule 24 intervention liberally and will reset the posture of a case (deny pending dispositive motions as moot, order mediation) to let a newly-added party be heard rather than rule without its briefing.
“Although the movant bears the burden of establishing its right to intervene, Rule 24 is to be liberally construed.”
Cautions
The reasoning layer here is ordinary civil/administrative dispositives because his very long marquee opinions (mifepristone AHM v. FDA, immigration, ACA Section 1557) were not fetched this build. Do NOT read these four orders as representative of his national-policy docket; deepen with those opinions before drawing any tendency.
“(builder caveat -- not an order quote)”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 14 |
Granted: 8Denied: 4Moot / procedural: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Preliminary injunction N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for permanent injunction N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to intervene N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Daubert motion N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Having considered the motions, pleadings, and relevant law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and renders summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor on all claims.”
“The Court DENIES Defendants' Cross-Motion.”
“CFC's Motion is GRANTED.”
“The parties' pending cross-motions for partial summary judgment are DENIED as moot with leave to refile.”
“The parties' pending cross-motions for partial summary judgment are DENIED as moot with leave to refile.”
“Because WTAMU has demonstrated that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all of Crawford's claims, WTAMU's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion and GRANTS Defendants' Cross-Motion.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion and GRANTS Defendants' Cross-Motion.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 95) and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's case in its entirety.”
“Defendant's Motion is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice. ... Plaintiff has leave to amend his Complaint within fourteen days of the date of this Order to attempt to properly allege subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“the Court GRANTS Great Lakes's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Great Lakes's claims and HFT's counterclaims, DECLARES the appraisal award void, STRIKES the appointed umpire, and DISMISSES with prejudice HFT's counterclaims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion IN PART. FDA’s approval of mifepristone is hereby STAYED. The Court STAYS the applicability of this opinion and order for seven (7) days to allow the federal government time to seek emergency relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.”
“Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ injuries are fully redressed by the Court’s vacatur of the gender identity provisions of the 2024 Guidance. As such, a permanent injunction in this case is unwarranted.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. Defendants are preliminarily ENJOINED from enforcing the 2024 Rule against Plaintiffs during the remainder of this suit.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED and the Cross-Motion is GRANTED.”
“DOL has provided that here. Accordingly, the Department is entitled to summary judgment, and Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Caseload read from search_dockets rows (nature_of_suit/cause/jurisdiction_type), not a full IDB baseline.