The judge did not issue a decision of his own, but simply signed the pro forma orders submitted by ECUSA and the local Gulick parties. He made a few deletions in the former, to make it clear that he was deciding the case by deference to the “hierarchy” of the Episcopal Church (USA), and not on neutral principles of law. Indeed, he staked his all on a bet that the Texas higher courts would not follow the latter approach, since he struck out the proposed paragraph that would have said he would reach the same result under “neutral principles” analysis. Thus if the Court of Appeal rules that he should have applied neutral principles, he will have to start all over again.
Feed the lawyers.
The more I read Haley and other commentators on American jurisprudence the less impressed I am by who we allow to sit on the bench and to practice law before it. Does anyone actually study law anymore or is it just another business you need a degree to enter into?
I’m not sure whether Mr. Haley intended it or not, but the phrasing of his report might lead some to think that it is unusual, or inattentive, or have some other negative implication that the Judge signed and order modified by the parties. I am not a Texas attorney, but in the jurisdictions with which I have direct experience (including the federal courts), it is commonplace either for each side to prepare a draft order that accompanies their moving papers, or, alternatively, once the disposition has been reached by the judge, for the judge to direct the prevailing party to prepare a draft order for his signature. The judge often modifies that draft through deletions and/or additions, but essentially uses it as a template to create a record of his decision. So I would counsel against anyone assuming that the fact that the Judge signed a draft order prepared by the prevailing party indicates that there is anything unusual or deficient in this process.