Notable opinions
Clement has a reputation as a conservative jurist and a strict constructionist who strongly supports principles of federalism.
She wrote for the majority in Vogler v. Blackmore, [9] reducing pain and suffering damages awarded by a jury to a mother and daughter who were killed in a car accident. The basis of her ruling was the lack of specific evidence about the daughter's "awareness of the impending collision." Large damage awards to the father and husband due to the loss of society in his wife and daughter were affirmed.
In Chiu v. Plano Independent School District, [10] Clement held that a school district's policy requiring the preapproval of fliers handed out at a school event violated the First Amendment free speech rights of would-be protestors.
In United States v. Harris, [11] Clement again wrote for the majority,this time reinstating the sentence of a police captain convicted for violation of federal civil rights laws in using excessive force. The captain moved to vacate,arguing that his counsel had been insufficient. Clement and the court held that the representation had been reasonable.
Clement wrote a unanimous opinion for the 5th Circuit in Tarver v. City of Edna. She upheld officers' appeal of qualified immunity for reasonably arresting a father who was interfering with the return of a child to its rightful custodian. Qualified immunity also protected officers from the plaintiff's accusation of excessive force in using handcuffs and confining him to the police car as part of the arrest. Officers also,however,slammed the car door on his foot and head,and the plaintiff's excessive force claim under this heading was remanded.
Clement has joined other conservative judges in dissenting in Commerce Clause cases that implicate federalism. In U.S. v. McFarland, [12] she argued that the Commerce Clause power did not enable Congress to regulate local robberies. In GDF Realty Investments,Ltd. v. Norton [13] Clement argued that the Endangered Species Act needed a commercial nexus to enable regulation of endemic rare species.
In 2010,Clement joined Judges Garza and Owen in affirming the dismissal of the complaint in Doe v. Silsbee Independent School District. [14] The plaintiff ("H.S.") was a cheerleader who was ordered by her high school to cheer for her sexual assaulter,a basketball player named Rakheem Bolton. [15] H.S. refused and was kicked off the team. She sued,claiming a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. The Eastern District of Texas,Judge Thad Heartfield,granted the school district's motion to dismiss, [16] and Judges Clement,Garza,and Owen affirmed. [14] H.S. was ordered to pay the school $45,000 in legal fees for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit. [15]
In 2025,Clement,and Judges Engelhardt and Wilson,upheld in part the jury verdict against Southwest Airlines in Carter v. Local 556 for discriminating against a flight attendant's religious practice without providing an accommodation. [17] Clement wrote for the panel that "the jury instruction’s delineation of Southwest’s burden at the time does not amount to reversible error because it nevertheless stated an undue hardship must amount to more than a de minimis cost,encompassing the possibility of cost to Southwest’s business operations from changes in employee morale." [18] The panel,however,reversed the jury's finding that Southwest Airlines discriminated against the flight attendant's religious beliefs. [17] Separately,the district court previously had held Southwest Airlines in contempt for failing to notify its flight attendants of the jury's judgment as directed. [17] Clement wrote that "[i]nforming employees that their employer does not discriminate is indeed different from informing employees their employer is legally prohibited from discriminating again." [19] However,the panel vacated the district court's contempt order,which required Southwest's attorneys to attend religious liberty training at Alliance Defending Freedom,by noting that "when a court’s contempt sanction in a civil matter is both overbroad in scope and undoubtedly punitive in nature,the judiciary risks appearing contemptuous like the contemnor." [19]
