Requested Clarification Sent.
Will the Fourth Circuit Finally Address Williams?

Six Judges, Six Dockets, and One Unanswered Supreme Court Ruling

Approximately three weeks ago we posted “The Fourth Circuit Has a Williams Problem.” This week, following the Judicial Council’s response and an invitation to clarify, we submitted a formal Rule 6(c) clarification—documenting how the Council’s prior dismissal under Rule 5 is structurally incompatible with Williams v. Reed (2025), the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling that federal courts cannot use procedural doctrines and judicial bars to block constitutional review under §1983.

Why This Matters

In Williams, the Court held: when procedural barriers like exhaustion or Rooker-Feldman are applied in ways that functionally prevent §1983 claims from being heard—even before the merits are reached—that foreclosure violates due process. The ruling wasn’t advisory or split. It was a categorical, unanimous instruction: federal courts must adjudicate constitutional claims. Labeling them as “state appeals in disguise” does not make them disappear.

That’s precisely what happened in our case.

Despite presenting clear federal questions—on delays, refusals to review post-judgment motions, and misapplication of procedural rules—the district court invoked Rooker-Feldman and dismissed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed without discussion, stating it “discerned no error.” When we brought this structural misalignment to the Judicial Council in a Rule 6-compliant complaint, the Council dismissed it under Rule 5, claiming there was “no probable cause”—without addressing Williams, and without identifying any factual deficiency.

This clarification is designed to correct the record—and compel engagement.

The Core: This Isn’t About a Bad Ruling. It’s About Structural Misalignment.

Our filings don’t contest the legal reasoning of a single judge in isolation. They expose a pattern:

• Procedural doctrines misapplied despite controlling precedent;
• Constitutional claims systematically unaddressed on the merits;
• Judicial conduct that enables insulation, preventing §1983 accountability for state actors.

Williams made clear: when federal courts act in ways that shield constitutional violations from review, they violate the very due process they are meant to protect. The issue now is not doctrinal disagreement—it’s judicial compliance with Supreme Court authority.

SIX JUDGES, SIX DOCKETS, ONE AVOIDED QUESTION

1. Judge Flanagan (District Court) dismissed the claims under Rooker-Feldman without addressing the federal questions.
2. Judge Wilkinson (Fourth Circuit) affirmed without comment on the constitutional issues.
3. Judge Wynn (Fourth Circuit) did the same.
4. Judge Thacker (Fourth Circuit) joined in the affirmance, without independent reasoning.
5. Chief Judge Diaz (Fourth Circuit Judicial Council) dismissed the related judicial complaint with no discussion of Williams or the misalignment.
6. Judge Niemeyer (Fourth Circuit Judicial Council) recast our follow-up Rule 6(c) clarification under Rule 5—again, without identifying any factual deficiency, precedent conflict, or procedural flaw.

What Happens Now

We’ve made the record clear. If Williams cannot be acknowledged in this context—where all three pillars it addressed (delay, denial, and procedural misuse) are plainly present—then the Fourth Circuit risks signaling that even a unanimous Supreme Court ruling carries no institutional weight here.

But if the Council reopens the complaint and addresses Williams directly, it will mark a necessary step toward restoring federal oversight where it belongs.

Final Word

The Fourth Circuit now faces a choice:

• Between omission and precedent.
• Between procedural bypass and constitutional duty.
• Between internal deflection and federal structural alignment.

We’ve sent the clarification.

Now, we watch—and we record.

— Michael Scott Davis & Stetson Mansfield Webster
LeveragetheLaw.com | contact@leveragethelaw.com

We are NOT asking you to just believe us.
We’re asking you to Read Our Submissions —
then notice what the Fourth Circuit refuses to address.