The Supreme Court's decisions in A.A.R.P. are among the most regrettable orders issued in recent memory. Putting aside the law, the decision unfairly maligned Judge James Wesley Hendrix. I alluded to that charge yesterday. Here, I want to flag a timely Op-Ed by Paul Cassell in the Wall Street Journal, titled "A Supreme Court Injustice to a District Judge."
Here is the introduction:
The Supreme Court held last week that the government needs to provide more notice to alleged alien enemies before deporting them. The 7-2 ruling in A.A.R.P. v. Trump wasn't itself a surprise; the court had already signaled skepticism of the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. But in the unsigned opinion, the justices did an injustice to James Wesley Hendrix, the presiding judge in Lubbock, Texas.
The high court accused Judge Hendrix of "inaction"—of failing to act quickly enough and thereby denying the aliens due process. In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) said this accusation was "unfair" and that "we should commend" the judge's "careful approach." The dissenters are right. Judge Hendrix's service was exemplary. The majority was wrong to malign this judge and sent a disturbing message about procedural norms.
