In an unprecedented move that has sparked controversy and raised questions about judicial integrity, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has effectively erased a dissenting opinion from its records. The case in question, Woodlands Pride, Inc. v. Paxton, originally included a partial dissent by Judge James Dennis, who criticized the majority’s reasoning and highlighted several legal oversights. However, following his transition to inactive status in February 2026, the remaining judges revised the panel opinion, omitting Judge Dennis's dissent entirely.

The decision, issued in November 2025 by Judges Kurt D. Engelhardt and Leslie Southwick, dealt with the enforcement of Texas's ban on drag performances. While the judges upheld the ban during ongoing litigation, Judge Dennis’s dissent accused the majority of "sloppy reasoning" and ignoring critical evidence. Despite the substantive nature of his objections, the updated opinion now features only a footnote on the Fourteenth Amendment claims and an expanded paragraph on facial challenges, with no trace of Judge Dennis’s original dissent.

This alteration was first noticed by legal analyst Gabriel Malor, who pointed out that the change occurred after Judge Dennis took inactive status. The implications of such a removal are profound, suggesting a potential shift in how appellate courts might handle dissenting voices, especially when those voices leave the bench.

Legal experts and scholars have expressed concern over this development, emphasizing that dissenting opinions are crucial for a comprehensive judicial record. They serve not only as a counterpoint to majority decisions but also as a vital tool for future case law analysis and academic research. Removing such opinions could undermine the judicial process, diminishing the diversity of judicial thought and the transparency of legal deliberations.

As this situation continues to unfold, the legal community and the public alike are keenly watching the Fifth Circuit’s next moves. The erasure of a dissenting opinion post-judge's retirement marks a significant moment in judicial history, one that could have lasting implications for how court decisions are recorded and remembered.