With Marriott removing Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin’s $100 million defamation lawsuit to federal court, the corporation has secured a more favorable forum than a state court in which home cooking often is a reality. But there’s a silver lining for Irvin.
The federal judge who’ll handle the case will be naturally inclined to look more favorably on Irvin’s claims.
This is how it works in federal court. It’s not a political comment; it’s a reality. In cases between individuals and corporations, federal judges appointed by Democratic administrations are more likely to issue favorable rulings to the individuals. Federal judges appointed by Republican administrations are more likely to use favorable rulings to the corporations.
It’s baked in to the respective ideologies, and it manifests itself not in one fell swoop but through the mindset the judge brings to each and every decision that must be made when processing a case. And it’s a basic reality that few realize. Democratic judges tend to skew toward the individual; Republican judges tend to support business interests.
Amos L. Mazzant III will handle Irvin’s case. Judge Mazzant was appointed by Barack Obama, and he has handled other NFL-related cases. Most notably, Judge Mazzant blocked the suspension imposed on Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott under the Personal Conduct Policy in 2017. (The NFL eventually prevailed on appeal, and before different judges.)
Ultimately, most of Irvin’s case will hinge on what is, or isn’t, contained in the surveillance video that Marriott has to date refused to produce. But to the extent that the litigation entails close questions of law that could go either way, Judge Mazzant may be more naturally inclined to exercise discretion in a way that helps the individual, and that holds the corporation accountable for any potential violations of the individual’s rights.
For more on the Irvin case, check out the attached video from today’s #PFTPM.
