Fifth Circuit Appeals Court’s Response to Supreme Court Ruling

Judge James Ho from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the Supreme Court regarding its assertion that the district court had “no action” due to a quick 42-minute ruling on the AARP vs. Trump emergency injunction. He countered this by stating that over 14 hours had actually passed.

The case revolves around Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang classified by the U.S. government as a foreign terrorist organization. In April, they sought a temporary restraining order to halt deportation from the U.S. The district court granted a 24-hour window for the petitioners to respond to the government. However, the emergency request was filed at 12:34 a.m. on April 18, which meant it went unnoticed until morning.

According to Ho, at 12:48 p.m., the petitioner warned that if a judgment wasn’t issued by 1:30 p.m., they would appeal. When the district court didn’t meet what was deemed a “patently unreasonable timetable,” an appeal was initiated. The appeal was dismissed later that night, with the Court of Appeals stating it lacked jurisdiction under 28 USC §1292(a)(1). They pointed out that providing only 42 minutes didn’t allow respondents adequate time to reply. The court noted that this limited timeframe couldn’t be seen as an “effective denial” of injunctive relief, and that more time was necessary for a proper judgment.

However, in May, the Supreme Court intervened, siding with the Fifth Circuit’s decision while highlighting that the initial emergency motion had indeed been filed at 12:34 a.m. The Supreme Court’s ruling pointed out that the lower court had not acted within 14 hours and 28 minutes, overruling the Court of Appeals with a 7-2 decision.

Ho specifically remarked on the district court’s handling of timing, asserting that the government had the right to scrutinize the decision to start the clock at that early hour. He added, “It seems they forgot this is a district court, not a fast-food chain.” Ho emphasized that it’s unreasonable to expect district judges to be on standby throughout the night for time-sensitive motions.

He further noted, if the expectation is for judges to be available around the clock, resources and staffing would have to reflect that need across all district courts nationwide. “If this doesn’t become a standard practice, we should recognize that this is preferential treatment for certain litigators, like those from Tren de Aragua,” he commented.

Ho expressed that, ideally, the appeal should have concluded as the petitioner bypassed standard protocol intended for emergency motions. He stated the Supreme Court’s intervention was troubling despite his individual agreement for the appeal to proceed. Additionally, Judge Samuel Alito published an opposition, concerned that the court was setting a hasty precedent.

Alito expressed reluctance to engage with the court’s order, as he did not see it being both necessary and appropriate to issue decisions in the middle of the night.