Trump wins a technicality in the lower court...
Judge Ho is not taking kindly to the Supreme Court inferring that judges must take orders (instantly) from the ACLU.
---------
Via
Julie Kelly @julie_kelly2:
"WHOO BOY it's hard to know where to start in Judge James Ho's withering rebuke of the Supreme Court in the AEA case that SCOTUS kicked back to Fifth Circuit (his court) last week.
(Ho was on the 3-judge panel in April that denied ACLU's immediate appeal of district court ruling denying 1st temp restraining order)
"As an inferior court, we’re duty-bound to follow Supreme Court rulings—whether we agree with them or not. We don’t have to like it. But we have to do it.
So I concur in our order today expediting our consideration of this matter, as directed by the Supreme Court. 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."
In their initial denial in April, the appellate court noted the very unreasonable 42 minute timeline the ACLU gave the lower court judge--James Hendrix--to respond to its emergency motion to halt deportations. SCOTUS, however, misrepresented the timeline and claimed Hendrix did not act for 14 hours and 28 minutes (still a ridiculously short amount of time further considering it was Easter weekend.)
Alito also called out his 7 colleagues for misrepresenting the timeline.
Ho: "Rather than commend the district court, however, the Supreme Court charged the district court with 'inaction—not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes.'
This inaction was, according to the Court, tantamount to 'refusing' to rule on the injunction. This charge is worth exploring.
To get to 14 hours and 28 minutes (rather than 42 minutes), the Court was obviously starting the clock at 12:34 a.m., rather than 12:48 p.m. (when Petitioners told the district court for the first time that they wanted a ruling before the Government could respond).
But starting the clock at 12:34 a.m. not only ignores the court’s express instructions respecting the Government’s right to respond. It also ignores the fact that the Court is starting the clock at—12:34 a.m.
We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court—not a Denny’s. [PURE GOLD LOL]
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. If this is going to become the norm, then we should say so: District judges are hereby expected to be available 24 hours a day—and the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should secure from Congress the resources and staffing necessary to ensure 24-hour operations in every district court across the country."
