“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump Eleventh Circuit judge Britt Grant wrote a 2-1 decision that stopped women who had been in Jasper County jail from pursuing claims of failing to stop sexual abuse against them for which they contended a jail official was responsible. Judge Nancy Abudu, who was nominated by President Biden, dissented in the October 2025 case of Bridges v Poe.
What happened in this case?
In Jasper City jail in Alabama, there were serious reports in 2017 and later of “widespread sexual abuse” by jail guards against female prisoners. They filed a federal lawsuit against jail officials. Two jail officials were principally responsible for sexual assaults and other misconduct, one of whom was later fired and subject to criminal prosecution. The civil lawsuit focused primarily on the jail’s supervisor who was responsible for day-to-day operations, Deborah Johnson.
Based partly on qualified immunity, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Johnson and against the women who suffered abuse. They appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
How did Trump judge Grant and the Eleventh Circuit majority rule and why is the Ninth Circuit majority decision harmful?
Trump judge Britt Grant wrote a 2-1 opinion, joined by George HW Bush nominee Ed Carnes, that affirmed the lower court. They claimed that the victims of the sexual abuse had failed to show that Johnson had shown even “tacit approval’ of the improper conduct by guards and was not liable.
Judge Abudu strongly dissented. She explained that “undisputed facts” in the case show that Johnson was “notified, consulted, and directly asked to stop” guard sexual abuse and other misconduct, which created a “genuine issue of fact” precluding summary judgment concerning the “extent of Johnson’s knowledge, the steps she should have taken,” and whether such steps were “objectively reasonable.” Abudu noted that Johnson conceded in a deposition that she took “no action at all in response” to the information she had. Overall, Abudu concluded, the record was clear that the claims against Johnson in both her “individual and official capacities” should have proceeded to trial and it was wrong to dismiss those claims.
As Abudu’s dissent showed, Trump judge Grant’s opinion clearly harmed the efforts of women who had been confined in Jasper County jail to get compensation and justice for the harm they had suffered. In addition, the majority ruling clearly illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.