Russell G. Little, Attorney at Law

Russell G. Little, Attorney at Law I represent people and families in civil, criminal and family courts. I've practiced law since 1983, and I've tried jury and nonjury cases for 32 years.

Operating as usual
Amid March Madness, antitrust dispute over college athlete compensation comes to the court - SCOTUSblog

This weekend the National Collegiate Athletic Association will host its storied “Final Four” to determine the champions of the men’s and women’s Division I basketball tournaments. But first the NCAA will be in a different high court on Wednesday: the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral ...

Traces of Texas

Traces of Texas

The old courthouse in El Paso not too long after it was built in 1885, What a gorgeous building!


On @FOX26Houston #WhatsYourPoint, panel talks about the massive delays in criminal court cases caused by #COVID19 pandemic. @SheriffEd_HCSO estimates the felony case backlog in Harris County alone is 60,000 cases.


Nearly eight years after two homemade bombs detonated near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring hundreds of others, the Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would review the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was sentenced to death for his role in the 2013 bombings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit threw out his death sentences last year, ruling that the district court should have asked potential jurors what media coverage they had seen about Tsarnaev’s case and that the district court should not have excluded from the sentencing phase evidence that Tsarnaev’s older brother, who placed one of the bombs, was involved in a separate triple murder. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case came on a list of orders from the justices’ private conference on March 19.


The student, Chike Uzuegbunam, is an evangelical Christian who was handing out religious literature on the campus at Georgia Gwinnett College when a campus police officer told him that he could only distribute literature by reserving one of two designating areas. When Uzuegbunam followed that advice and reserved an area, another police officer told Uzuegbunam that his speech was disturbing other people and therefore violating the college’s ban on “disorderly conduct.”

Uzuegbunam went to federal court, where he contended that the college’s policies violated the First Amendment. After the college changed policies and Uzuegbunam (along with Joseph Bradford, another student who had joined the lawsuit) graduated, the trial court threw out the case. It ruled that although Uzuegbunam had asked for nominal damages – an award that is small or largely symbolic, such as a dollar – in addition to his request for an order blocking the college from enforcing the now-rescinded policies, that was not enough to allow the case to continue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld that decision, agreeing that the case was moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. Uzuegbunam went to the Supreme Court, which on Monday reversed.


With the ink barely dry on the 2020 election, the Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral argument in two voting-rights cases from Arizona that could affect elections in that state and others in the future. The cases – Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee – are a challenge to two different Arizona voting provisions. One is a policy that requires an entire ballot to be thrown away if it was cast at the wrong precinct, while the other is a state law that bars the collection of ballots by third parties, sometimes dubbed “ballot harvesting.” After nearly two hours of debate, a majority of justices seemed likely to uphold both provisions. The real question left open after Tuesday’s oral argument was whether a majority would coalesce around a standard for determining whether voting laws and practices violate Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting – and, if so, what standard that would be.


In the latest of a line of challenges to restrictions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court ordered a California county to allow churches to hold indoor worship services. In a brief order on Friday night, the justices granted a request to block county public health restrictions imposed in light of the pandemic while the restrictions are being challenged in federal court.

The request was filed by a group of churches in Santa Clara County, challenging the enforcement of a county order barring indoor worship services. The churches came to the Supreme Court on Feb. 17, asking the justices to allow them to hold services inside as soon as possible. They argued that the county’s order discriminates against houses of worship by treating other activities, including grocery stores and airports, more favorably. The churches pointed to the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in two cases – one lifting New York’s COVID-related limits on attendance at worship services and the other granting requests by southern California churches to resume indoor worship services – to support their contention that the Santa Clara County order must also fall.


When the Supreme Court returns from its winter recess, the justices will have an unusually heavy load of environmental cases to sift through — and potentially more to come.

What began as a sleepy term on environmental issues — with only an interstate water fight and an EPA records dispute on deck — has blossomed into a term filled with prominent pipeline, climate and biofuels battles. And the Supreme Court could soon choose to weigh in on a number of other pending matters, including the high-stakes kids' climate case, Juliana v. United States.

"Without question, there is no reluctance to take environmental cases," said John Cruden, a principal at Beveridge & Diamond PC and former head of the Justice Department's environment division.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court's newest member, has so far given few indications of how her addition to the bench could affect the outcome of environmental cases. The court's only environmental opinion so far this term hung on technical issues that are not typically decided along ideological lines.

Many do not believe in Free Speech “Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Humza Yousaf, insists that policing expression — publi...
Scotland’s New Blasphemy Law - Law & Liberty

Many do not believe in Free Speech

“Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Humza Yousaf, insists that policing expression — public, online, or even at private parties — is necessary to stamp out hate.”

Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Humza Yousaf, insists that policing expression — public, online, or even at private parties — is necessary to stamp out hate.
Divided court allows indoor worship services to resume in California - SCOTUSblog

More than eight months after the Supreme Court declined to intervene in a California church’s challenge to the state’s stay-at-home orders issued as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, the justices late Friday night gave the go-ahead for California churches to resume indoor worship services. The co...


SUPREME COURT ENDS SOME OF NEWSOM’S WORSHIP BAN: But leaves the rest in place for now, including the ban on singing and chanting in worship services, as well as the building capacity percentage limits that are designed to enforce social distancing.

Biggest surprise in the decision is probably the fact the High Court’s newest Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative Catholic who foaming-at-the-mouth detractors predicted would use her position to force every American to attend Latin Mass daily, joined Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a middle-ground position.


The United States Supreme Court has scheduled the Pennsylvania election case, Sidney Powell's Michigan election case, and Lin Wood's Georgia election case for its February 19 conference


The Supreme Court on Monday released the calendar for its March argument session, scheduling arguments on issues including student-athlete compensation, union organizing, Medicaid work requirements and the seizure of guns from the home of a man believed to be suicidal.

Houston Writers Guild

Houston Writers Guild

After 3 years leading the association, it is time for me to step down and focus on my passion projects. Thank you to my AMAZING board members Sandy Lawrence Clio Lang Tom Richard Alicia Richardson Mack Little and Andrew Fischer for a fun and productive ride. Big thanks as well to our wonderful community of content creators and partners (special shout out to the Social Saturday gang 💜) who have helped grow the guild to what it is today. Will miss you all. Keep writing. Keep sharing your art. The world needs your voice. 🙏 Signing out, Andrea Sanchez

Federal Judge Improperly Vowed to ‘Crush’ Professor’s Lawyers
Federal Judge Improperly Vowed to ‘Crush’ Professor’s Lawyers

Federal Judge Improperly Vowed to ‘Crush’ Professor’s Lawyers

A psychology professor will see her s*x discrimination and retaliation lawsuits against two Texas universities revived after the Fifth Circuit said the trial judge’s inappropriate behavior indicated he prejudged her claims.
TaxProf Blog: Court Rejects University Of Illinois' Motion To Dismiss Former Econ Prof's $7.9 Million Lawsuit

Following up on my previous posts: Illinois Econ Professor Resigns After He Admits Sharing Photos With Student But Denies Sex-For-Grade Allegation; Accuser Is Arrested On Related Charge (May 13, 2019) Former Economics Professor Files $7.9 Million Lawsuit Against University Of Illinois For Damages To...


945 McKinney Suite 243
Houston, TX

Opening Hours

Monday 09:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 09:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 09:00 - 17:00
Thursday 09:00 - 17:00
Friday 09:00 - 17:00


(713) 599-1000


Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Russell G. Little, Attorney at Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.


Nearby government services

Other Government Buildings in Houston

Show All


Hello mister Russell these is Gilbert Reyes I hope you see these I need to talk to you send me your number to these number is my fone number 832 229.1991 please thank you so much mister Russell