A transgender woman alleges that new U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr expressed anti-LGBTQ bias in the past, and he should have recused himself from her case, but improperly refused to step down.

Valerie Jackson of Dallas appealed Thursday, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to step in and recuse Starr, one of the newest judges on the Dallas federal court in the Northern District of Texas. Confirmed to his bench in July, Starr used to be deputy first assistant attorney general of Texas, where he supervised almost two dozen divisions in the Texas Office of the Attorney General.

Jackson's attorney, Scott Palmer, wrote in an email that Starr made at least three legal errors when deciding Jackson's motion to recuse, and he's asked the Fifth Circuit to remove Starr and appoint a new judge.

In November 2016, Jackson was arrested and charged with possession of a weapon in a prohibited place after she says she forgot to remove her firearm from her bag before she went to the airport, said her Dec. 12 petition for writ of mandamus in In Re Valerie Jackson.

In a lawsuit, Jackson alleged violations of federal law and of her constitutional rights, because at the Dallas County Jail, staff forced her to expose her genitalia to confirm her gender, which she has legally changed to female on her driver's license. She alleged they then placed her with the male detainee population, and she had to shower with men.

Her lawsuit was transferred to Starr in September. Jackson claimed that the judge has advocated against civil rights for LGBTQ people, and he holds a patent bias or prejudice against them, which is shown by his conduct and comments when he worked in the Attorney General's Office.

For example, Jackson alleged that Starr sued the Obama administration over the directive that transgender students in public schools use the bathroom of their gender identity. He participated in a panel discussion in 2015 and defended the right of county clerks who religiously oppose same-sex marriage to delegate authority to others in their offices to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Starr in 2015 testified to Texas lawmakers about a bill to protect adoption agencies that will not place children into same-sex families, said the petition.

"Given that Judge Starr has fervently fought against equal rights for members of the LGBTQ community, and specifically transgender individuals, a clear bias/prejudice exists against relator," said the petition.

In a Nov. 22 opinion, Starr denied recusal, and attacked Jackson's allegations, weighed evidence of the allegations and found them to be without merit.

Jackson alleged the judge handled the motion to recuse improperly. She argued case law mandates he was only supposed to review it for legal sufficiency, then proceed no further and allow another judge to take over. But instead, she said Starr wrote a 12-page factual rebuttal opinion that weighed the facts and refuted allegations one by one.

No one answered the phone in Starr's chambers. In the opinion, the judge wrote that Jackson's allegations did not show he had a personal bias. He wrote that her examples came from Starr's legal advocacy when he worked for the State of Texas, and they were statements for a client, not about his personal views. Jackson also misconstrued Starr's positions, the opinion said. Starr wrote that in his confirmation process, Starr affirmed that as a judge, he would set aside his personal beliefs and commit himself to applying the law and precedent faithfully.

"Under Jackson's theory, any person who has served as a government attorney—and, in that role, advocated under administrative and constitutional law the government's legitimate legal positions—could be characterized as personally biased against anyone who happens to disagree with the government's legal positions and political interests," Starr wrote in the opinion. "Persons who have previously served as government lawyers can effectively and fairly preside as federal judges."