I. Overview

On November 25, 2025, former Hawkins Municipal Judge Mitchel Henderson filed a document titled “Amicus Curiae Brief of Mitchel Henderson in Support of Plaintiff’s Petition for Removal” in a Wood County district court.

This memorandum evaluates that filing for procedural validity, legal accuracy, and potential ethical or statutory violations. Our analysis concludes that the filing is invalid, unauthorized, and deeply problematic under Texas law.

II. Procedural Defects

1. Improper Use of “Amicus Curiae”

Texas district courts do not automatically permit amicus filings. A participant must first request leave of court.
Henderson did not seek permission, making the filing procedurally improper.

2. Reliance on Wrong Rules

The filing cites Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which applies only to appellate courts—not district courts. This alone renders the submission defective.

3. No Standing

Henderson is neither a party, intervenor, nor authorized representative of any governmental entity. He has no standing to file a brief in the case.

III. Misrepresentation of Judicial Authority

1. False Claim to Hold Office

Henderson signs the brief:

“Individually and as Municipal Court Judge, City of Hawkins, Texas.”

At the time of filing, he had already been removed from office. Representing himself as the municipal judge is a misrepresentation to the court and the public.

2. Improper Use of Former Office

The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges—current or former—from using the prestige of office to advance personal or political purposes. This filing clearly attempts to do so.

IV. Legal & Substantive Errors

1. Misstatement of Dual-Office Law

Henderson argues that the mayor “automatically resigned” her office when she briefly served in a judicial capacity. This is not correct under Texas constitutional law.

• Dual-office incompatibility is not self-executing.

• Any alleged forfeiture requires a quo warranto action.

• Only the Attorney General or a county/district attorney may bring such an action.

2. Misapplication of Election Code § 201

The Election Code provisions he cites concern vacancies in connection with elections, not judicial appointments or dual-office issues.

3. Request for Unlawful Relief

Henderson asks the district court to:

• declare the mayor removed,

• order the sheriff to enforce removal,

• and bar the mayor from city property.

These requests are outside the jurisdiction of a district court and wholly unsupported by Texas law.

V. Ethical Concerns

1. Violations of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct

Although removed, Henderson continues to act under color of judicial authority, which implicates:

• Canon 1 – Compliance with the law

• Canon 2B – Misuse of the judicial office

• Canon 3B – Competence and impartiality

• Canon 6C – Restrictions on former judges misrepresenting status

2. Improper Attempt to Influence Litigation

Filing a brief as a purported judicial officer to affect a removal suit within his own municipality is a clear breach of ethical boundaries.

VI. Potential Statutory Violations

The filing raises concerns under:

• Penal Code § 39.02 – Abuse of Official Capacity

• Penal Code § 39.03 – Official Oppression

• Penal Code § 37.10 – Tampering with a Government Record (representing himself as judge after removal)

• Penal Code § 38.123 – Unauthorized Practice of Law (if construed as legal representation)

While further investigation is required, these issues merit scrutiny.

VII. Conclusion

The Nov. 25 filing:

• is procedurally invalid,

• contains numerous legal inaccuracies,

• misrepresents the filer’s authority,

• attempts to use a former judicial position for personal or political ends, and

• may raise ethical and statutory concerns.

It carries no legal force and stands as an example of improper use of judicial imagery and legal language to exert pressure on local governance.

Accountability Matters will continue to monitor related filings and communications and provide updates as necessary.