The Dangers of Judicial Overreach: 5th Circuit Judge Ho’s Cautionary Words
April 21, 2025, 3:32 pm CDT
Judge James C. Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant concurrence in a death-penalty case, highlighting concerns about judicial authority. (Photo from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans)
In a recent opinion concerning a death-penalty case, Judge James C. Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals expressed grave concerns regarding the conduct of federal trial judges who he believes may overstep their boundaries, undermining the will of the electorate. This statement came through a concurrence that emphasized the potential threat of “judicial supremacy.”
Appointed to the appeals court by former President Donald Trump, Judge Ho’s views reflect a considerable unease with the actions of certain federal judges. He co-authored a majority opinion concerning a case involving lethal injection methods in Louisiana, where he articulated his stance on judicial overreach.
Case Overview and Judicial Guidelines
The majority opinion, which he penned alongside fellow Trump appointee Judge Andrew S. Oldham, addressed a situation where a federal trial judge reopened an Eighth Amendment challenge regarding lethal injection. Ho asserted that this action was inappropriate, as the case was deemed moot due to the state’s inability to procure lethal injection drugs.
Ho lambasted the lower court’s decision to reignite proceedings, suggesting it represented a “usurpation of judicial power.” He directed the district court to vacate its order to reopen the case, stating that the unusual circumstances warranted the appellate court’s intervention.
The Need for Appellate Intervention
In his concurrence, Ho underlined that it is not uncommon for the appellate court to intervene when lower courts exceed their authority. He maintained that when judges act to disrupt the lawful political decisions made by the electorate, it becomes essential for higher courts to step in and provide emergency relief.
Quoting the foundational principles of American governance, Ho remarked, “Our founders didn’t fight a Revolutionary War to replace one king in royal garb with hundreds of kings in judicial robes.” This assertion served to highlight his belief in the need to maintain checks and balances within the judicial system.
Key Comparisons to Supreme Court Action
Judge Ho further referenced a recent Supreme Court case, where an intervention was necessary to lift a federal judge’s temporary restraining order that obstructed the Trump administration from utilizing the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members. He noted that the Supreme Court recognized the need for immediate action to avoid unnecessary delays in enforcing the will of the people.
Ho argued that when district judges proceed without caution, and appellate courts are restrained from acting swiftly, it could lead to a detrimental imbalance in judicial authority. “When a district judge acts hastily, yet appellate courts are told not to ‘rush in,’ that’s not a plea for judicial sobriety—it’s a recipe for district judge supremacy,” he stated.
This ongoing dialogue about judicial authority serves as a reminder of the intricate balance of power necessary for a well-functioning democracy, and the vital role that appellate courts play in upholding it.
