A federal judge in Texas has struck down a court filing from attorneys representing the Trump administration for failing to comply with local formatting rules—specifically, the use of a font size smaller than that mandated by the court.
Why It Matters
The ruling reflects how procedural rules, often viewed as technicalities, play a critical role in the judicial process, with the rebuke highlighting the importance of adherence to all procedural requirements in federal litigation, no matter the prominence of the parties involved.
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
What To Know
Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson, presiding over the federal habeas litigation case Mario Hernandez Escalante v. Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and Nikita Baker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, issued an amended order on July 26, 2025.
In it, she struck the Trump administration’s objections to a prior report and recommendation, citing both the formatting violation and the volume of objections presented.
According to court documents reviewed by Newsweek, Judge Stetson found that the document submitted by the respondents did not meet the court’s standards for formatting. In the court’s Amended Order Striking Objections, Judge Stetson cited E.D. TEX. R. CV-10(a), stating that “the Local Rules require use of a font no smaller than 12-point type.”
Rule CV-10 outlines how legal documents must be structured, including font size, spacing, identification of the document’s purpose, and necessary signatures.
In addition to the formatting issue, Judge Stetson noted that the Trump administration’s legal team submitted objections totaling fifteen pages in length. The judge cited E.D. TEX. R. CV-7(k), stating that “objections to reports and recommendations on case-dispositive motions shall not exceed eight pages.”
The court emphasized that the combination of these factors—noncompliant formatting and excess length—necessitated the removal of the filing from the case record.
The case of Escalante v. Noem et al., originated in the District of Maryland under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Maryland court initially enjoined any removal or status-related actions, indicating concern that Escalante might face removal absent judicial relief.
On June 25, 2025, the Maryland court terminated a temporary restraining order, granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the Eastern District of Texas.
A writ of habeas corpus a legal safeguard against unjust imprisonment. It ensures that no one is detained without valid legal cause and provides a critical check on the power of the state.
The named respondents include Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and former Governor of South Dakota; Todd M. Lyons, the Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Nikita Baker, the Acting Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Baltimore, Maryland; both of whom are officials involved in the custody or processing of immigration cases.
Newsweek contacted Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, Nikita Baker (at USDHS), and Attorney James Gillingham (at United States Attorney’s Office – Tyler) representing, Newsweek also contacted Jessica Dawgert, Kevin Hirst and Joseph Moravec (at Blessinger Legal PLLC) for Escalante, for comment by email outside regular working hours.
Courts—especially appellate courts—strictly enforce local formatting rules, including margin sizes, font, and spacing. Even small oversights, like omitting a required cardstock backing, can result in filings being rejected. Attempting to bypass page limits by using smaller fonts, adjusting margins, or hiding arguments in footnotes is strongly discouraged; courts recognize and penalize these tactics.
And there is precedent for Judge Stetson’s actions: in Abner v. Scott Memorial Hospital, 634 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2011), a decision that dealt with procedural compliance—specifically, the submission of an oversize appellate brief without court authorization—an attorney’s brief was struck for exceeding limits and falsely certifying compliance.
What People Are Saying
Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson said in her ruling: “Respondent’s objections are typed in what seems to be a small font … [and] did not seek leave of court before filing objections totaling almost twice the allowed page limit.”
Judge Stetson added: “Respondents are directed to either refile the objections as is (but with 12-point type font) with the appropriate motion for leave to exceed page limitations in accordance with the Local Rules (see E.D. TEX. R. CV-7(k)), or to refile the objections to comport with the eight (8) page limitation and font requirements by Wednesday, July 30, 2025.”
What Happens Next
Escalante’s legal team continues to seek judicial relief aimed at halting his removal from the continental United States. The court’s next steps are expected to determine whether the Eastern District of Texas has authority to adjudicate the habeas petition and, if so, whether the petitioner’s detention is lawful under federal immigration law and constitutional standards.
