The refusal by a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to shut down leftists’ lower court judicial coup against President Trump has drawn sharp rebukes from conservatives across America. These critics (correctly) argue that the high court’s unwillingness to shut down (and at times, its willingness to participate in) this effort both subverts the power of the executive branch and undermines the will of the more than 77 million Americans who voted for the president in the 2024 election.
But it’s not just judicial commentators and everyday citizens who are getting fed up with the justices’ political gamesmanship.
Last week, a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order “expedit[ing] to the next available randomly designated regular oral argument panel” the case known as A.A.R.P. v. Trump. The matter centers around Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members.
The order came as part of the lower court’s compliance with a May 16 SCOTUS decision, in which a majority (7-2) on SCOTUS remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit. As described by Fox News, the ruling — in which Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented — “revolved around the alleged illegal immigrants not having enough time to reasonably file a challenge to their deportations.”
While the Fifth Circuit panel’s order followed the Supreme Court’s instructions, it also included a multi-page concurring opinion from Judge James Ho. In addition to arguing that the identified Tren de Aragua members “should not be allowed to proceed in this appeal,” the Trump appointee excoriated the high court for the “disrespect” it has shown “the district judge as well as the President and other officials” in the case.
“As an inferior court, we’re duty-bound to follow Supreme Court rulings — whether we agree with them or not. … So I concur in our order today expediting our consideration of this matter, as directed by the Supreme Court,” Ho wrote. “But I write to state my sincere concerns about how the district judge as well as the President and other officials have been treated in this case. I worry that the disrespect they have been shown will not inspire continued respect for the judiciary, without which we cannot long function.”
Ho went on to note that it “is not the role of the judiciary to check the excesses of the other branches, any more than it’s our role to check the excesses of any other American citizen” — an apparent rebuke to recent remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts. While speaking at an event in his hometown of Buffalo, New York, earlier this month, the Bush appointee tacitly endorsed the concept of judicial supremacy, claiming the courts can unilaterally “strike down … acts of Congress or acts of the president” they believe to be unlawful or unfavorable.
“Judges do not roam the countryside looking for opportunities to chastise government officials for their mistakes,” Ho wrote. “Rather, our job is simply to decide those legal disputes over which Congress has given us jurisdiction.”
Much like Alito did in his dissenting opinion in SCOTUS’s May 16 decision, Ho ardently defended District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s handling of petitioners’ requests for emergency relief, saying he “conducted himself in a reasonable and indeed admirable manner” and “any criticism of [him] is unwarranted and unfortunate.” He further echoed Alito’s criticisms of the Supreme Court’s characterization of Hendrix’s declination to immediately abide by petitioners’ late-night requests as “misleading.”
“We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court — not a Denny’s. 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 wrote. “If this is going to become the norm, then we should say so. … 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 Fifth Circuit judge concluded his fiery opinion by underscoring that Trump deserves the same level of respect all presidents before him have been afforded. He specifically pointed to former President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union address and former President Bill Clinton’s inability to practice law before the high court as examples of presidents who — despite having disagreements with court rulings — were entitled to said respect.
“Yet I doubt that any court would deny any of those Presidents the right to express their views in any pending case to which they are a party, before issuing any ruling. Our current President deserves the same respect,” Ho wrote.
Whether Roberts and his colleagues take Ho’s criticisms seriously remains to be seen. But what is certain is that the longer the high court continues to entertain leftists’ judicial coup, the more credibility it loses with the American people.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
