Jerry Edwin Smith
Jerry Edwin Smith is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit since December 1987.Early life and education
Smith was born on November 7, 1946, in Del Rio, Texas. After high school, he graduated from Yale University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1969 and earned a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School in 1972.Career
Smith clerked for Judge Halbert O. Woodward of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas from 1972 to 1973. After his clerkship, he joined the law firm Fulbright & Jaworski, where he became a partner in 1981.
Smith was Director of the Harris County Housing Authority in Texas from 1978 to 1980. He was a special assistant attorney general of Texas from 1981 to 1982. He was Chairman of the Houston Civil Service Commission from 1982 to 1984. He was a city attorney in Houston from 1984 to 1987.Federal judicial service
Smith was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on June 2, 1987, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on December 19, 1987, and received commission on December 21, 1987.Notable cases
1991 on EPA regulation
In Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201, Smith wrote the panel opinion that required the United States Environmental Protection Agency to use cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to ban a toxic substance.1996 on affirmative action
Smith wrote the majority opinion in Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, in which the Fifth Circuit struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions at the University of Texas School of Law. Seven years later, the decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court's 5–4 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306. However, in 2023, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. The Court found that affirmative action in student admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.2004 on 4th amendment
Smith dissented in a 2004 case called United States v. Gould. A large majority of the judges ruled that a "protective sweep" of a man hiding in the woods, which included arresting him without a warrant and seizing his guns, was not a violation of the 4th amendment. Although Smith's position lost that day, 17 years later the Supreme Court would unanimously take a position similar to Smith's in Caniglia v. Strom.2007 on securities fraud claims
In Regents of the University of California v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 482 F.3d 372, Smith wrote the majority opinion barring securities fraud claims against third parties who aided in securities fraud but did not directly mislead investors. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148.2010 on deep water drilling
Smith was one of three judges on a panel that heard the appeal to Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar, a case challenging the U.S. Department of the Interior's six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling in deep water that was adopted in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent oil spill. The lower court had struck down the Department of the Interior's moratorium as arbitrary and capricious government action, and the Fifth Circuit panel denied the government's emergency request to stay the lower court's decision pending appeal.2011 on Texas House redistricting
In November 2011, Smith, sitting on a special three-judge district court, dissented in Perez v. Perry, 835 F. Supp. 2d 209, in which the majority adopted an interim redistricting map for the Texas House of Representatives. In his dissent, Judge Smith characterized the majority's map as being of the "purest of intentions" but "extreme" and "untethered to the applicable caselaw." Agreeing with Judge Smith, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the district court's majority opinion in Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388.2012 on Obamacare
In April 2012, during oral argument in a Fifth Circuit case involving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Smith ordered the Department of Justice to provide his panel of three judges with a three-page, single-spaced report explaining President Obama's views on judicial review. Judge Smith's order was prompted by Obama's recent press conference remarks on a case pending before the Supreme Court in which the Court was considering, among other things, whether to strike down the entire ACA as unconstitutional. Obama had said that if the Supreme Court overturned the ACA, it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," and that a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue had not been overturned by the court "going back to the '30s, pre New Deal," remarks that were criticized by many as historically and legally inaccurate. Though Judge Smith's response and order were criticized by some legal scholars and members of the press, Bush administration U.S. Attorney General and former judge Michael Mukasey defended Smith, stating that Obama's remarks had called judicial review "into question", so that "the court has, it seems to me, every obligation to sit up and take notice of Mr. Obama." U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Justice Department would respond "appropriately" to the judge's request and filed a short response, conceding that the federal courts have the power to strike down laws passed by Congress but citing Supreme Court precedent for the proposition that those laws are presumed constitutional and should only be overturned "sparingly".2012 on the scope of Congress's power
In July 2012, Smith authored the majority opinion for the en banc Fifth Circuit in United States v. Kebodeaux, 687 F.3d 232, holding that, once a former federal convict has fully served his sentence and been unconditionally released from prison, the federal government cannot regulate his purely intrastate conduct merely because he was once convicted of a federal crime. Smith's majority opinion further held that the mere possibility that a person may move interstate in the future is an insufficient basis for the federal government to regulate that person under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The decision was reversed 7–2 by the Supreme Court in United States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496, on the grounds that Kebodeaux himself was not unconditionally released from federal custody, because a law in effect at the time of his offense required him to register as a sex offender after his release from prison. However, a concurring opinion by Chief Justice Roberts agreed with Judge Smith's en banc opinion on the core issue that "he fact of a prior federal conviction, by itself, does not give Congress a freestanding, independent, and perpetual interest in protecting the public from the convict's purely intrastate conduct."2013 on bankruptcy courts
In November 2013, Smith authored the court's opinion in BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C. , 735 F.3d 279, holding that a bankruptcy court lacked power under Article III of the Constitution to adjudicate "non-core" bankruptcy claims even where the parties to the proceeding consented to the bankruptcy court's authority to adjudicate the claims. Judge Smith's opinion was later abrogated in a 6–3 opinion by the Supreme Court in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 92.2014 on free speech
In July 2014, Smith dissented in Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v. Vandergriff, 759 F.3d 388, in which the majority held that the Texas Department of Motor Vehicle's decision to deny an application for a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate battle flag violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In his dissent, Judge Smith said that the specialty license plate constituted government speech rather than private speech and that therefore the First Amendment did not apply. The Supreme Court later agreed with Judge Smith in a 5–4 opinion in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239.2015 on religious freedom
In June 2015, Smith authored the court's opinion in East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell, 793 F.3d 449, upholding the Obama Administration's requirement that religious organizations either offer their employees health insurance that covers certain contraceptive services or submit a form or notification declaring their religious opposition to that coverage. Judge Smith's opinion rejected the argument that the Obama Administration's rule violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, finding that it did not substantially burden the religious exercise of religious organizations. His opinion was later vacated in a per curiam opinion by the Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557, which called on the parties to reach a compromise that both accommodated religious institutions' exercise of religion while at the same time ensuring that women covered by religious institutions' health plans receive contraceptive coverage. The Trump Administration has since drafted a rule to roll back the Obama Administration's contraceptive requirement for many religious employers.2015 on DAPA
In November 2015, Smith wrote the majority opinion in Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, which held that the Obama Administration's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program violated the Administrative Procedure Act and affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction forbidding implementation of DAPA. In United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment by an equally divided vote. In June 2017, the Trump Administration announced that it .