The Fourth Circuit Has a Williams Problem
Why a Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Was Ignored — and Why It Matters for Everyone
On April 2, 2025, we submitted a formal judicial misconduct complaint to the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council. It was not emotional or vague. It was surgical, precise, and anchored in clear, authoritative precedent.
We meticulously documented how several federal judges deliberately bypassed a critical Supreme Court ruling to evade review of serious constitutional violations.
We cited foundational Supreme Court decisions:
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005)
- Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP (2010)
- Williams v. Reed (2025) — a unanimous 9–0 decision issued just months earlier (February 2025)
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Williams is clear and unequivocal:
“Federal courts may not use procedural doctrines to foreclose §1983 claims involving constitutional injury.”
So, how did the Fourth Circuit respond to our documented challenge?
They cited Rule 5 — originally meant to quickly dismiss genuinely meritless or repetitive complaints without unnecessary back-and-forth. Here, however, it was misused: no explanation, no engagement with Williams v. Reed — the very precedent at the heart of our communication.
They simply wiped, shrugged, and discarded it.
This isn’t hyperbole. It’s an observable pattern of institutional behavior, fully documented and now publicly visible. The Fourth Circuit didn’t just ignore us — they ignored the Supreme Court.
- This is procedural insulation, not misinterpretation.
- This is deliberate non-engagement, not disagreement.
- This is judicial evasion, not judicial discretion.
Rule 5 wasn’t designed to nullify Supreme Court precedent. But that’s exactly how it was used here.
A Broader Pattern of Judicial Misalignment
What Happens When the Court That’s Supposed to Keep Judges Honest Refuses to Act?
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered one of the least likely — if not the least likely federal circuits in the entire country to hold state judges, courts, or officials accountable when they violate the law. Not because it can’t. Because it won’t.
For example, let’s say you’re: Arrested without due process in North Carolina, or a family court judge curtails your parental rights without justification, or a state actor makes a ruling so far off the law it doesn’t resemble justice at all.
In virtually any other Circuit, you could challenge that in federal court. As far as we can tell, if anyone ever wanted to demonstrate what a Circuit Court split looks like—this would be it.
If you’ve lived it, you know the feeling. If you haven’t, someone you know or love probably has.
That sinking realization that laws are only as strong as their enforcement — and that in the Fourth Circuit, enforcement in any practical sense doesn’t exist. It jeopardizes everyone’s constitutional rights and sets a dangerous precedent for future judicial behavior.
We Are Formally Submitting This Public Statement Into the Official Records of:
- The Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit
- The U.S. Judicial Conference
Because silence from these bodies will itself become evidence of the systemic pattern we’ve identified.
For transparency and public accountability, this statement and supporting documentation are archived and fully accessible here:
https://www.leveragethelaw.com/4th-circuit-williams-problem
This issue is bigger than any single court or individual case. It’s about whether powerful institutions can selectively ignore the law.
When judges use procedural gamesmanship to avoid reviewing clear constitutional violations — that’s not law. That’s performance.
We’re asking you to read the (concise) complaint/response —
then notice what the Fourth Circuit refuses to address.
— Michael Scott Davis & Stetson Mansfield Webster
LeveragetheLaw.com
contact@leveragethelaw.com
Letter to 4th Circuit and Response
