Kinder Morgan, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KINDER MORGAN, INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF §
LABOR, a federal administrative §
agency; THE OFFICE OF §
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, an §
administrative subdivision of §
the United States Department of §
Labor; LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, in §
her official capacity as §
Secretary of the United States §
Department of Labor; JOHN M. §
HERKE, in his official capacity §
as an Administrative Law Judge §
of the United States Department §
of Labor; and JAMES JACKSON, §
§
Defendants. §
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-3651
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(1)
Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Consolidated
Motion to Dismiss Defendant James Jackson's Amended
Counterclaims, and (2) Motion to Strike His Amended Answer, and
Brief in Support ("Plaintiff's Motion to smiss") (Docket Entry
No. 63). In response, Jackson filed a motion for leave to amend
his answer.1 Jackson's proposed amendment voluntarily dismisses
1Defendant James Jackson's Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff's'Motion to Dismiss and Strike (Dkt. 63) and Alternative
(continued...)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03651 Document 79 Filed 04/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 7

his counterclaims against Plaintiff Kinder Morgan, Inc. ("Kinder
Morgan"). 2 Kinder Morgan does not oppose Jackson's request to
amend his answer. 3
Accordingly, Jackson's Motion to Amend (Docket Entry No. 73)
will be granted and Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry
No. 63) will be denied as moot.
Also pending before the court is Defendant and Counter
Plaintiff James Jackson's Emergency Motion to Strike Misstyled
"Joint" Motion to Convert Preliminary Injunction to Permanent
Injunction, to Vacate the Conversion Order, and to Dissolve or
Modify the Injunction ("Jackson's Motion to Vacate") (Docket Entry
No. 64). Jackson asks the court to vacate its order granting
Kinder Morgan's and Federal Defendants' motion to convert the
preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction because (1) the
court was misled to believe that the motion to convert was "joint",
(2) the court's order granting a preliminary injunction was based
on the misrepresentation that Jackson's counsel rejected each
1 ( .•. continued)
Opposed Motion for Leave to File Proposed Second Amended Answer
("Jackson's Motion to Amend"), Docket Entry No. 73.
2 Id. at 2 � (3). All page numbers reference the pagination
imprinted at the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case
Filing system.
3 Plaintiff Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Response to Defendant James
Jackson's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss
and Strike (Dkt. 63) and Alternative Opposed Motion for Leave to
File Proposed Second Amended Answer, Docket Entry No. 75, p. 1.
-2-
Case 4:25-cv-03651 Document 79 Filed 04/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7

hearing date offered by Kinder Morgan, and (3) Kinder Morgan's
claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.4
"Rule 54(b) allows parties to seek reconsideration of
interlocutory orders and authorizes the district court to ' se []
at any time' 'any order or other decision [that] does not end
the action.'" Pedersen v, Kinder Morgan, Inc,, 2023 WL 6441948, at
*2 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2023) (quoting Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P.,
864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th r. 2017)). "'Under Rule 54(b), the trial
court is e to reconsider and reverse decision for any reason
it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an
intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law.'"
Id. (quoting Austin, 864 F.3d at 336) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Jackson presents no good reason to reconsider the court's
order granting Kinder Morgan's and Federal Defendants' Joint Motion
to Convert Preliminary unction to Permanent Injunction. The
court was aware that Jackson was not a party to the Joint Motion to
Convert Preliminary Injunction to Permanent Injunction when it
4Jackson's Motion to Vacate, Docket Entry No. 64, pp. 5-7.
Jackson alleges that the unclean hands doctrine appl because
(1) Kinder Morgan asserted false procedural language the
administrative process, (2) Kinder Morgan engaged in ex email
communications with the ALJ, (3) Kinder Morgan did not produce
certain documents to the DOL, and (4) Kinder Morgan identi him
as a prisoner on the docket. Id. at 15; Plaintiff's Oppos ion to
Defendant And Counter-Plaintiff James Jackson's Emergency Motion to
Strike Misstyled "Joint" Motion to Convert Preliminary Injunction
to Permanent Injunction, to Vacate the Conversion Order, and to
Dissolve or Modify the Injunction, Docket Entry No. 67, p. 11.
-3-
Case 4:25-cv-03651 Document 79 Filed 04/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7

granted the motion. 5 Moreover, the court's decision to grant the
preliminary injunction was not based on Jackson's refusal to
schedule a hearing date with the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").
Instead, it was based on the fact that Kinder Morgan was likely to
succeed on its claim that the removal requirements for the
Department of Labor's ALJs violated Take Care Clause. 6
Finally, the court finds that Jackson cannot establish the elements
of his unclean hands defense because the conduct he alleges is not
directly related to whether the removal requirements for the
Department of Labor's ("DOL") ALJs violate the Take Care Clause.
Mitchell Brothers Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852,
863 (5th Cir. 1979) (stating that to invoke the unclean hands
defense a defendant must show (1) the plaintiff's alleged
misconduct is "directly related to the merits of the controversy
between the parties," and (2) "he has personally been injured by
the plaintiff's conduct").
For the reasons explained above, Jackson's Alternative Opposed
Motion Leave to File Proposed Second Amended Answer (Docket
Entry No. 73) is GRANTED; ff's Consolidated (1) Motion to
Dismiss Defendant James Jackson's Amended Counterclaims, and
(2) Motion to Strike His Amended Answer, and ef in Support
5Order Granting Joint Motion to Convert Preliminary Injunction
to Permanent Injunction, Docket Entry No. 62, p. 1 n.1.
6Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket Entry No. 51, pp. 14-15.
-4-
Case 4:25-cv-03651 Document 79 Filed 04/29/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 7

(Docket Entry No. 63) is DENIED AS MOOT; and Defendant and Counter
Plaintiff James Jackson's Emergency Motion to Strike Misstyled
"Joint" Motion to Convert Preliminary Injunction to Permanent
Injunction, to Vacate the Conversion Order, and to Dissolve or
Modify the Injunction (Docket Entry No. 64) is DENIED.
On December 15, 2025, the court preliminarily enjoined
Defendants from proceeding any further with OALJ case number 2021-
PSI-000002 and any related proceedings. 7 In its Order (Docket
Entry No. 62), the court stated that it would "separately enter an
order on Kinder Morgan's request for a Permanent Injunction based
on all the parties' briefing already filed with the Court." On
March 9, 2026, Kinder Morgan and the Federal Defendants filed the
Joint Advisory Regarding Motion to Convert (Docket Entry No. 72)
stating:
court
Following the Court's order on the Motion to Convert,
Kinder Morgan and the Federal Defendants conferred at
length to determine if an agreement could be reached
regarding the contents of a proposed order on Kinder
Morgan's permanent injunction request. Unfortunately, no
agreement could be reached. Accordingly, Kinder Morgan
and the Federal Defendants submit their respective
proposed orders attached hereto as Exhibits A and B for
the Court's resolution this matter.
Having carefully considered the parties proposed orders, the
concerned that both Kinder Morgan's and Federal
Defendants' proposed permanent injunctions ask the court to make
rulings beyond the scope of its Memorandum Opinion and Order
7Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket Entry No. 51, p. 18.
-5-
Case 4:25-cv-03651 Document 79 Filed 04/29/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 7

granting Kinder Morgan's motion for a preliminary injunction. The
court declines to do so. The scope of the permanent injunction
will be limited to the rulings contained in the Memorandum Opinion
and Order the court entered on December 15, 2025.
For the reasons explained in the court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order (Docket Entry No. 51, pp. 12-18) and pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2), the court concludes that Kinder
Morgan has succeeded on the merits of its claim that the statutes
restricting the removal of DOL ALJs, including the Presiding ALJ,
violate the Take Care Clause of Article II of the United States
Constitution, as alleged in Count II of the Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Docket Entry No. 1).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED THAT Defendants,
the United States Department of Labor, Secretary of Labor Lori
Chavez-Deremer, the Office of Administrative Law Judges,
Administrative Law Judge John M. Herke, and James Jackson, are
hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from proceeding any further with OALJ
-6-
Case 4:25-cv-03651 Document 79 Filed 04/29/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7

case number 2021-PSI-000002 and any related adjudicative
proceeding(s) within the Department of Labor against Kinder Morgan,
Inc., including, without limitation, any hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this 29th day of April, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-7-
Case 4:25-cv-03651 Document 79 Filed 04/29/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 7