Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/22/2025 9:46:59 AM PDT by Red Badger
Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit responded to the Supreme Court charging a district court with “inaction” for not ruling on an emergency injunction in A.A.R.P v. Trump in 42 minutes by arguing they had over 14 hours.
Alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang the U.S. government has designated as a foreign terrorist organization, sent an injunction in April seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent their deportation or removal from the U.S., according to Ho’s concurring opinion. The district court told petitioners it would give the government a 24-hour period to respond. The request for emergency relief was submitted at 12:34 a.m. on April 18 when nobody was able to receive it.
At 12:48 p.m., the petitioners informed the district court they would appeal if no ruling was issued by 1:30 p.m., giving the court a 42-minute deadline, according to Ho. When the district court was unable to meet what he called a “patently unreasonable timetable,” the petitioners filed for an appeal. (RELATED: GOP Rep Who Was Censured For Opposing Trans Athletes Sticks It To Democrats With Supreme Court Victory)
The appeal was dismissed by the appellate court that same night, which said it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), ruling that “Petitioners gave the court only 42 minutes to act—and did not give Respondents time to respond,” Ho wrote. The appellate court wrote that the 42-minute deadline did not constitute “an ‘effective denial’ of injunctive relief.” That amount of time was insufficient for the district court to review legal authorities and issue a reasoned ruling, according to the judge.
However, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of the appeal in May, arguing that the lower court failed to rule within 14 hours and 28 minutes, referring to when the initial emergency motion was submitted at 12:34 a.m. “Here the District Court’s inaction—not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes—had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals,” the nation’s highest court wrote in a 7 to 2 ruling.
Ho responded by noting that the district court had issued instructions that the government had a right to respond and questioning the decision to start the clock at 12:34 a.m.
“We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court—not a Denny’s,” Ho said. “This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion.”
Ho added that if district judges were expected to be available 24 hours a day, then they should receive “the resources and staffing necessary to ensure 24-hour operations in every district court across the country.”
“If this is not to become the norm, then we should admit that this is special treatment being afforded to certain favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua—and we should stop pretending that Lady Justice is blindfolded,” the judge continued.
“This appeal should be over. Petitioners denied the district court the opportunity to rule on their emergency motion in the first instance. That alone should be enough to terminate this appeal,” Ho concluded. “But the Supreme Court has reversed our unanimous judgement. So this appeal must proceed. I accordingly concur.”
Justice Samuel Alito issued a dissent against the Supreme Court’s ruling, arguing that it broke precedent and was rushed.
“I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate,” Alito continued.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
I like this judge.
Put him on the Supreme Court.
The anti Boasberg.
I read up on this judge. He’s a Thai immigrant. Trump appointee and is on the list for potential SCOTUS. I think after this ruling he’s closer to the top of the list.
Hopefully one of the ladies (any of them) steps down soon so he can be appointed.
I knew a one-legged lawyer named Peg who worked at IHOP.
Translation?
“I read up on this judge. He’s a Thai immigrant.“.
I heard he was from Taiwan, not Thailand!
“I read up on this judge. He’s a Thai immigrant. Trump appointee and is on the list for potential SCOTUS. I think after this ruling he’s closer to the top of the list.”
____________________________________________________________
Ho is one of McConnell’s people, and his flip-off of the higher court will prevent his confirmation if he’s nominated.
Why is AARP getting involved in this?
Thailand?
Who/What is this “A.A.R.P.” in this case? It can’t possibly be the AARP of eeryone over 50 years of age... Yet I have browed over a dozen documents related to this case and can find no information regarding who filed this case under the name “A.A.R.P.”...
“...A.A.R.P., on his own behalf”
Apparently A.A.R.P. is the plaintiff’s initials. Being a Venezuelan, he has multiple surnames..............
-PJ
I remember that radio skit Rush used to play about eating at Reginald Denny’s. I miss Rush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.