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.
TOPSHOT – Justices of the US Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022. (Seated from left) Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Associate Justice Elena Kagan, (Standing behind from left) Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
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.
This article was originally published at dailycaller.com
