WASHINGTON, D.C. – A federal appellate judge has taken the rare step of publicly rebuking the U.S. Supreme Court in a sharply worded concurrence. Judge James C. Ho, appointed by former President Donald Trump to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, criticized the high court’s recent handling of a deportation case involving Venezuelan immigrants facing removal under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
His message was clear: SCOTUS overstepped, disrespected fellow judges, and bent legal norms for favored litigants.
The Case: AEA, Emergency Appeals, and Deportation Delays
The case centers on a group of Venezuelan plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, who filed to block their deportation under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, fearing they’d be sent to a notorious El Salvador prison. The ACLU bypassed typical court procedure and took the case directly to the Supreme Court — twice — citing immediate danger to their clients.
On April 19, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the deportations with a rare Saturday order, noting that lower courts had not moved fast enough. The ruling arrived just hours after the Fifth Circuit dismissed the case, citing lack of jurisdiction.
SCOTUS eventually sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit, effectively overriding the dismissal and keeping deportation efforts frozen.
Judge Ho’s Concurrence: Blunt, Bold, and Blistering
Judge Ho — known for his conservative leanings — was not pleased. Though he agreed with moving the case forward because the high court ordered it, he used the opportunity to slam the Supreme Court’s rationale, especially its criticism of the trial court judge.
“This is a district court — not a Denny’s,” Ho wrote, responding to the high court’s suggestion that the district judge should have ruled within hours of a 12:34 a.m. filing.
Ho mocked the notion that district courts must monitor dockets in the middle of the night, warning that if this becomes a norm, 24/7 court operations and new Congressional funding would be needed.
“Disrespect” Toward Judges and the Executive
The tone of the concurrence shifts from sarcastic to serious as Ho accused the high court of disrespecting the trial judge — James Hendrix, also a Trump appointee — by implying he was lazy or inattentive.
“All inferior court judges expect to be reversed on appeal… But I’d wager that this judge never imagined he’d be reversed on grounds of laziness,” Ho wrote.
Ho also claimed that the Supreme Court showed similar disrespect toward the President and other executive officials, suggesting that they were denied a fair opportunity to respond to emergency filings.
Citing the legal system’s adversarial nature, Ho argued that no ruling — especially not one impacting the President’s authority — should be issued without hearing both sides.
SCOTUS Faulted the Government’s Credibility
At the heart of the dispute is whether the Department of Justice’s assurances — that the plaintiffs weren’t in immediate danger — were trustworthy. The district judge accepted them; the Supreme Court did not. In effect, the high court sided with the ACLU, implying the government was not credible, even in court filings.
That position clearly irritated Ho, who suggested that courts are treating different administrations unequally.
“Our current President deserves the same respect,” he wrote, after referencing prior presidents who were given more benefit of the doubt.
The Bigger Picture: Ho Warns of Judicial Fallout
Judge Ho closed his concurrence with a broader concern — that disrespect between courts and toward parties undermines public trust in the judiciary.
“I worry that the disrespect they have been shown will not inspire continued respect for the judiciary,” he said. “Without which we cannot long function.”
In a rare and fiery concurrence, Judge James C. Ho criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for its handling of an Alien Enemies Act deportation case, accusing the justices of disrespecting a fellow judge, the President, and the judicial process. The comments highlight growing tension between conservative lower courts and SCOTUS, especially in high-stakes immigration and executive authority cases.
