James Ho And Torture
Ho Wrote A Memo That Was Cited In The 2002 “Bybee” Memo Used To Authorize Torture During The Bush Administration
Ho Wrote A Memo That Was Later Cited By The Bush Administration To Authorize Torture
As Attorney Advisor At The Office Of Legal Counsel Between 2001 And 2003, Ho Authored A Memo That Concluded International Treaties Did Not Apply To Prisoners In The War On Terror. According to ProPublica, “James Ho moved from the Justice Department’s civil rights division to the Office of Legal Counsel shortly after Sept. 11. He authored at least one key memo concluding that international treaties don’t apply to the prisoners in the War on Terror.” [ProPublica, 1/28/09]
Ho’s Memo Was Titled “Re: Possible Interpretations Of Common Article 3 Of The 1949 Geneva Convention Relative To The Treatment Of Prisoners Of War.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: At your nomination hearing, Senators Durbin and Whitehouse both asked you questions about a memo you had written during your time in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Your memo, entitled Re: Possible Interpretations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, was cited in one of the three ‘torture memos’ signed by then-head of OLC Jay Bybee. I have written to the Department of Justice asking them to waive any privilege over this memo and disclose it to the Committee. It is critically important that the Committee understands your work on the torture memos and on detainee-related matters more generally.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho’s Memo Was Cited In The 2002 “Bybee” Memo, Which Was Used To Authorize Torture During The Bush Administration
Ho’s Memo Was Cited In The 2002 “Bybee” Memo, Which Was Used To Authorize Torture During The Bush Administration. According to the Texas Tribune, “During his confirmation hearing last month, Ho faced questions about his contributions to the infamous 2002 ‘Bybee memo,’ a product of then-President George W. Bush’s administration that authorized the use of torture against certain detainees. Ho wrote a memo that is cited in that document, but Ho’s writing has not been made public due to attorney-client privilege, he told the committee.” [Texas Tribune, 12/14/17]
Ho’s Memo Was Not Made Available To The Senate During His Confirmation Hearing To The Fifth Circuit
Ho‘s Memo Was Not Made Available To Senate Judiciary Committee. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: At your nomination hearing, Senators Durbin and Whitehouse both asked you questions about a memo you had written during your time in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Your memo, entitled Re: Possible Interpretations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, was cited in one of the three ‘torture memos’ signed by then-head of OLC Jay Bybee. I have written to the Department of Justice asking them to waive any privilege over this memo and disclose it to the Committee. It is critically important that the Committee understands your work on the torture memos and on detainee-related matters more generally.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Downplayed His Role In The Torture Memo
Ho Justified Writing The Memo By Stating He Was Only Two Years Out Of Law School When He Wrote Memo For The Office Of Legal Counsel. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: As noted above, your memo was titled Re: Possible Interpretations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. What did your memo conclude? HO: It is my understanding that the Department of Justice has never waived privilege with respect to this memo that I wrote as an attorney for the United States. That said, I am authorized to report that, as the most junior attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel, I typically engaged in legal research for the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. As a career line attorney and member of the professional staff of the Justice Department, and not a political appointee, I did not have the power or authority to reach any legal conclusion on behalf of the office. (At the time this particular memo was written, I would have been out of law school for just over two years.)” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Justified Writing The Memo By Stating That He “Did Not Have The Power Or Authority To Reach Any Legal Conclusion On Behalf Of The Office.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: As noted above, your memo was titled Re: Possible Interpretations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. What did your memo conclude? HO: It is my understanding that the Department of Justice has never waived privilege with respect to this memo that I wrote as an attorney for the United States. That said, I am authorized to report that, as the most junior attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel, I typically engaged in legal research for the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. As a career line attorney and member of the professional staff of the Justice Department, and not a political appointee, I did not have the power or authority to reach any legal conclusion on behalf of the office. (At the time this particular memo was written, I would have been out of law school for just over two years.)” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Claimed He Had No Involvement In The Bybee Memo
Ho Claimed He Had No Involvement In The Bybee Memo And That He First Learned Of The Memo From The Press While He Was Working For John Cornyn. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “HO: I had no involvement in the Bybee memo. I first learned of the Bybee memo when it was reported in the press, well after I left the Office of Legal Counsel and joined the Senate Judiciary Committee staff as chief counsel to Senator John Cornyn. As the most junior attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel, I typically engaged in legal research for the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. As a career line attorney and member of the professional staff of the Justice Department, and not a political appointee, I did not have the power or authority to reach any legal conclusion on behalf of the office. (At the time my memo was written, I would have been out of law school for just over two years.) As is apparent from the face of the Bybee memo, my memo involved common article 3 of the Geneva Convention. By contrast, the Bybee memo concerned various federal statutes, as well as the Torture Convention. Common article 3 of the Geneva Convention did not provide any support for the conclusions reached by the Bybee memo—as the Bybee memo itself points out.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Claimed His Memo Did Not Analyze The Legality Of Any Method Of Torture
Ho Claimed His Memo Did Not Analyze The Legality Of Any Method Of “Enhanced Interrogation.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: Did your memo address whether any particular ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ constituted torture? HO: It is my understanding that the Department of Justice has never waived privilege with respect to this memo that I wrote as an attorney for the United States. That said, I am authorized to report that, to the best of my recollection, I had no involvement in analyzing the legality of any proposed method of enhanced interrogation” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
James Ho And Democracy
Ho Opposed Campaign Contribution Limits
1997: Ho Wrote An Article Calling To “Abolish All Restriction On Campaign Finance”
1997: Ho: “Abolish All Restriction On Campaign Finance.”. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: In a 1997 article, you expressed your support for ‘abolish[ing] all restrictions on campaign finance,’ with the exception of the mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Claimed That Campaign Finance Regulations Would Result In “The End Of Free Speech.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: In a 1997 article, you expressed your support for ‘abolish[ing] all restrictions on campaign finance,’ with the exception of the mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions. You argued that the ‘inevitable result’ of an ‘expansion’ of laws regulating campaign finance was ‘the end of free speech.’ In the same piece, you wrote that the debate over campaign finance reform ‘obscure[d] the true cause of corruption. Politicians can coerce campaign contributions from ever-willing donors for one simple reason: the state intrudes upon so many areas of personal and commercial life that success is impossible without permission from the sovereign.’ Please describe your understanding of how campaign finance regulations will lead to ‘the end of free speech.’” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Wrote A Lengthy Opinion In Favor Of Eliminating Campaign Contribution Limits In His First Case On The Fifth Circuit
April 2018: Ho’s First Opinion Was A Dissent In A Case About Campaign Contribution Limits. According to NPR, “Ho’s first opinion, in April, was a dissent in a case involving limits on campaign contributions in Austin, Texas.” [NPR, 7/26/18]
- The Case Concerned Campaign Contribution Limits In Austin, Texas Where Candidates Representing Fewer Than 100,000 People Were Barred From Accepting Donations Over $350. According to NPR, “Ho’s first opinion, in April, was a dissent in a case involving limits on campaign contributions in Austin, Texas. Candidates for municipal elections — people like mayors and city council representatives who represent fewer than 100,000 people — are barred from accepting donations of more than $350.” [NPR, 7/26/18]
Ho Voted In Favor Of Rehearing The Case. According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and the court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 18, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk No. 16-51366 2 In the en banc poll, two judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Jones and Ho) and twelve judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Smith, Dennis, Clement, Owen, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Costa, and Willett). […] The First Amendment therefore protects campaign contributions. For example, in Randall v. Sorrell, the Supreme Court invalidated various campaign contribution limits imposed by the State of Vermont. 548 U.S. 230 (2006). That included a limit of $300 per election cycle—that is, $150 per election (primary and general), or $215 in 2015 dollars—for state senators representing between 20,000 and 120,000 people. Id. at 236–38 (plurality); see also Joint App’x at 21–22, Randall, 548 U.S. 230 (Nos. 04-1528, 04-1530, 04- 1697), 2005 WL 3477006, at *55–56, 79” [United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2/1/18]
Ho Argued That Since The Government Can “Take And Redistribute Man’s Livelihood,” Citizens Should Be Allowed To Use “Their Hard Earned Income” To “Speak” To The Government. According to Ho in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “To be sure, many Americans of good faith bemoan the amount of money spent on campaign contributions and political speech. But if you don’t like big money in politics, then you should oppose big government in our lives. Because the former is a necessary consequence of the latter. When government grows larger, when regulators pick more and more economic winners and losers, participation in the political process ceases to be merely a citizen’s prerogative—it becomes a human necessity. This is the inevitable result of a government that would be unrecognizable to our Founders. See, e.g., NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) So if there is too much money in politics, it’s because there’s too much government. The size and scope of government makes such spending essential. See, e.g., EMILY’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1, 33 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Brown, J., concurring) (‘The more power is at stake, the more money will be used to shield, deflect, or co-opt it. So long as the government can take and redistribute a man’s livelihood, there will always be money in politics.’). But whatever size government we choose, the Constitution requires that it comply with our cherished First Amendment right to speak and to participate in our own governance. If we’re going to ask taxpayers to devote a substantial percentage of their hard-earned income to fund the innumerable activities of federal, state, and local government, we should at the very least allow citizens to spend a fraction of that amount to speak out about how the government should spend their money. I respectfully dissent.” [United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2/1/18]
Ho Opposed Voting Rights
Ho Concurred With A Decision To Prevent Texas Voters Under 65 Years Old To Qualify For Mail-In Ballot During COVID-19 Pandemic
Ho Concurred With A Decision To Prevent Texas Voters Under 65 Years Old To Qualify For Mail-In Ballot During COVID-19 Pandemic. According to Courthouse News Service, “The Fifth Circuit on Thursday rebuked a San Antonio federal judge in its unanimous order blocking an injunction that would have allowed any Texan to qualify for a mail-in ballot during the Covid-19 pandemic. […] ‘The district court ignored virtually the entire body of governing Supreme Court precedent relevant to this case,’ U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in a concurring opinion for the Fifth Circuit, which granted a stay of the lower court’s order.” [Courthouse News Service, 6/4/20]
James Ho And Health Care
Ho Opposed The Affordable Care Act
Ho Called The ACA “A Threat To The Constitution”
2014: Ho Wrote An Op-Ed Calling Obamacare “A Threat To The Constitution.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “DURBIN: In a 2014 op-ed in the Dallas Morning News about the re-election bid of your former boss, Senator Cornyn, you said, ‘Cornyn was one of the earliest officials to predict that Obamacare would be not just bad policy, but a threat to the Constitution.’ Do you still believe that Obamacare is a threat to the Constitution? If so, how is it a threat? HO: The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenge to the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act. If I am so fortunate to be confirmed as a federal judge, I would follow all U.S. Supreme Court precedents concerning the Affordable Care Act.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
James Ho And Guns
Ho Opposed Gun Safety Efforts
Ho Complained That The Second Amendment Was Treated As “Second Class” Right
Ho Complained The Second Amendment Was Treated As A “Second Class” Right And Said Fear Of Guns Should Not Threaten Constitutional Rights. According to NPR, “More recently, in a case involving the ban on interstate handgun sales, Ho complained, ‘the Second Amendment continues to be rated as a ‘second class’ right,’ borrowing language from his mentor, Clarence Thomas, and new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. ‘Law-abiding Americans should not be conflated with dangerous criminals,’ Ho added. ‘Constitutional rights must not give way to hoplophobia.’” [NPR, 7/26/18]
Ho Described The Second Amendment As “The Ultimate Guarantor Of All Other Liberties Enjoyed By Americans.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: As Solicitor General of Texas, you submitted an amicus brief on behalf of 38 states in McDonald v. Chicago, a 2009 case following on the heels of District of Columbia v. Heller that challenged Chicago’s ban on handguns. In your brief, you wrote that ‘the right to keep and bear arms [is] the ultimate guarantor of all the other liberties enjoyed by Americans.’ Please describe how the Second Amendment is ‘the ultimate guarantor of all the other liberties enjoyed by Americans.’ HO: The amicus brief filed by 38 states in McDonald relies upon the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller, among other authorities, for the proposition that an ‘indispensable’ ‘safeguard[] of liberty . . . under the Constitution’ is ‘a man’s ‘right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead.’’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 616 (2008).” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Wrote An Amicus Brief Challenging A Chicago Handgun Ban
As Solicitor General Of Texas Ho Wrote An Amicus Brief To Challenge Chicago’s Handgun Ban. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: As Solicitor General of Texas, you submitted an amicus brief on behalf of 38 states in McDonald v. Chicago, a 2009 case following on the heels of District of Columbia v. Heller that challenged Chicago’s ban on handguns.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
The Supreme Court Struck Down The Handgun Ban
The Supreme Court Struck Down The Handgun Ban. According to NPR, “The high court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that ‘the right to keep and bear arms’ applies to cities and states, effectively striking down 30-year-old handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill.” [NPR, 6/28/10]
Ho Favorably Cited Heller And Refused To Comment On Whether Heller Departed From Precedent
In DC v. Heller, The Supreme Court Decided That The Second Amendment Guaranteed An Individual’s Right To Own Guns Separate From A Militia Service. According to the Washington Post, “The Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession yesterday and decided for the first time in the nation’s history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun for self-defense. The court’s landmark 5 to 4 decision split along ideological grounds and wiped away years of lower court decisions that had held that the intent of the amendment, ratified more than 200 years ago, was to tie the right of gun possession to militia service.” [Washington Post, 6/27/08]
Ho Favorably Cited From Heller When Asked If Heller Allowed Room For Common Sense Gun Regulation During Confirmation Hearing. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: Did Heller leave room for common-sense gun regulation? HO: The Supreme Court in Heller stated, ‘We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country . . . . The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.’ 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008). See also id. at 626-27 & n. 26.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Did Not Comment On Whether Heller Departed From Decades Of Supreme Court Precedent. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: Did Heller, in finding an individual right to bear arms, depart from decades of Supreme Court precedent? HO: As a pending judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to opine on my personal views as to the merits or reasoning of a particular U.S. Supreme Court decision. If I am so fortunate as to be confirmed to be a federal judge, I would follow all Supreme Court precedents concerning the regulation of guns.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Voted To Strike Down A Law Prohibiting Gun Possession By People Under A Domestic Violence Protection Order
In United States v. Rahimi, Ho Voted To Strike Down A Law Prohibiting Gun Possession By People Under A Domestic Violence Protection Order. According to CNN, “A federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a conservative-leaning appeals court ruled Thursday. […] The court’s opinion was written by Judge Cory Todd Wilson, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. He was joined by Reagan-appointee Judge Edith Jones and Judge James Ho, another Trump appointee who also wrote a concurrence.” [CNN, 2/2/23]
Ho Wrote That Domestic Violence Restraining Orders Are “Too Often Misused As A Tactical Device In Divorce Proceedings” As A Reason To Strike Down The Law. According to Ho in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “Moreover, there are additional reasons why disarmament based on civil protective orders should give us pause. Scholars and judges have expressed alarm that civil protective orders are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings—and issued without any actual threat of danger. That makes it difficult to justify § 922(g)(8) as a measure to disarm dangerous individuals.” [CaseText, 3/2/23]
The Supreme Court Reversed The Fifth Circuit’s Ruling And Upheld The Law
The Supreme Court Reversed The Fifth Circuit’s Ruling And Upheld The Law Prohibiting Gun Possession By People Under A Domestic Violence Protection Order. According to the New York Times, “The case decided Friday, United States v. Rahimi, asked whether a Texas man could be prosecuted under federal law making it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess guns. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said that the answer was yes and that Second Amendment rights have limits.” [New York Times, 6/21/24]
James Ho And Abortion
Ho Ruled To Allow Texas’ Abortion Ban To Go Into Effect
Ho Ruled To Allow Texas’ Abortion Ban To Go Into Effect
Ho Ruled To Allow Texas’ Abortion Ban To Go Into Effect While The State Appeals An Injunction Against It. According to People for the American Way, “Trump Fifth Circuit judge James Ho cast the deciding vote in a 2-1 decision to grant Texas’ motion to stay a district court’s preliminary injunction against its draconian abortion law while it appeals the injunction. This effectively means the prohibition will remain in place for months or more, unless the Supreme Court takes prompt action on the Justice Department’s announced plan to ask it to vacate the stay. The October 2021 Fifth Circuit order was in US v Texas.” [People for the American Way, 10/15/21]
- The Texas Abortion Banned Abortion As Soon As A Heartbeat Was Detected And It Allowed People To Sue Others They Think Performed Or Got An Abortion. According to People for the American Way, “As explained earlier in this blog, Texas recently passed what has been called the ‘nation’s strictest’ abortion law, which prohibits abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, after about six weeks of pregnancy. The law also sets up a ‘bounty hunting scheme’ to enforce the law, under which any person who is not a government official can file a civil lawsuit against anyone they think performed or helped someone get an abortion that violated it and, if they succeed, receive statutory damages of at least $10,000 per abortion, plus costs, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief.” [People for the American Way, 10/15/21]
Ho Ruled To Fully Revoke FDA Approval For Medication Abortion And Did Not Recuse From The Case Despite Financial Ties To Plaintiff’s Lawyers
Ho Ruled To Fully Revoke Mifepristone’s Initial FDA Approval And Take The Drug Off The Market
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals, Which Ho Is Part Of, Ruled That Access To The Abortion Pill Mifepristone Should Be Rolled Back By Limiting Online Ordering, Mail Delivery, And Pharmacy Dispensing Of The Pill. According to Politico, “The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled that access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, should be sharply curtailed, ramping up the legal threat to the most popular method of ending a pregnancy. The decision — if allowed by the Supreme Court to take effect — would roll back actions the federal government has taken since 2016 to make the pills more accessible, including rules allowing online ordering, mail delivery, and pharmacy dispensing of the drugs. It also would roll back access from the current 10 weeks of pregnancy to seven and would reimpose a requirement that only physicians can prescribe the pills.” [Politico, 8/16/23]
The Ruling Would Also Roll Back The Ten-Week Access Limit To Seven And Make It A Requirement That Only Physicians Could Prescribe The Pill. According to Politico, “The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled that access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, should be sharply curtailed, ramping up the legal threat to the most popular method of ending a pregnancy. The decision — if allowed by the Supreme Court to take effect — would roll back actions the federal government has taken since 2016 to make the pills more accessible, including rules allowing online ordering, mail delivery, and pharmacy dispensing of the drugs. It also would roll back access from the current 10 weeks of pregnancy to seven and would reimpose a requirement that only physicians can prescribe the pills.” [Politico, 8/16/23]
Ho Concurred In The Mifepristone Judgment But Argued To Be More Restrictive, Revoking Mifepristone’s Initial FDA Approval And Taking The Drug Off The Market
Ho Agreed That The Initial Approval Of Mifepristone Should Be Rolled Back Which Could Have Taken The Pill Off The Market Altogether. According to Politico, “One of the judges on the three-judge panel, Judge James Ho, wanted to go even further than rolling back access to the drug. He agreed with the most extreme position of the challengers that the FDA’s original approval should be stripped altogether, a move that would take the drug off the market entirely. But Ho, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, was overruled by his two colleagues — also Republican appointees — who said it’s too late for anti-abortion groups to challenge the original agency approval declaring the drugs safe and effective more than two decades ago.” [Politico, 8/16/23]
Ho Was Connected To The Anti-Abortion Group That Brought The Mifepristone Case Through His Wife
Ho’s Wife, Allyson, Received Least Six Payments From 2018 Through 2022 From The Legal Group Behind The Mifepristone Case, Alliance Defending Freedom. According to the Guardian, “Ho served on the three-judge panel last summer that ruled to restrict access to mifepristone. The legal group behind the mifepristone case, Alliance Defending Freedom, made at least six payments from 2018 through 2022 to his wife, Allyson, a powerhouse federal appellate lawyer who has argued in front of the Supreme Court and has deep connections to the conservative legal movement that has led the attack on the right to abortion in the US.” [Guardian, 3/25/24]
- It Was Not Clear What Alliance Defending Freedom Paid Allyson Ho Do But The Group Was Dedicated To Ending Abortion. According to Guardian, “It’s unclear what Alliance Defending Freedom paid Allyson Ho to do, yet ending abortion is central among the organization’s goals. The group helped write the Mississippi law that led to the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade and ended the 50-year-old constitutional right to an abortion.” [Guardian, 3/25/24]
Ho Was Outspoken In Condemning Abortion In His Rulings
Ho Was Openly Antagonistic To Abortion In His Rulings
Ho: “The First Amendment Expressly Guarantees The Free Exercise Of Religion — Including The Right Of The Bishops To Express Their Profound Objection To The Moral Tragedy Of Abortion.” According to NPR, “Ho has shaken up the staid world of appellate law by deploying aggressive rhetoric in cases involving guns, abortion rights and campaign finance regulations. Today’s government ‘would be unrecognizable to our Founders,’ he has written. He condemned what he called ‘the moral tragedy of abortion.’ […] ‘It’s hard to imagine a better example of how far we have strayed from the text and original understanding of the Constitution than this case,’ Ho wrote in a concurring opinion. ‘The First Amendment expressly guarantees the free exercise of religion — including the right of the bishops to express their profound objection to the moral tragedy of abortion.’” [NPR, 7/26/18]
Ho In A Concurring Opinion, Said Abortion Was “The Immoral, Tragic, And Violent Taking Of Innocent Human Life.” According to CNN, “In a 2019 concurring opinion, Ho also said that a trial judge’s ruling – which struck down a 15-week abortion ban and which was affirmed by the 5th Circuit under the then-standing Roe precedent – displayed ‘an alarming disrespect for the millions of Americans who believe that babies deserve legal protection during pregnancy as well as after birth, and that abortion is the immoral, tragic, and violent taking of innocent human life.’” [CNN, 5/8/23]
James Ho And LGBTQ Rights
Ho Opposed LGBTQ Rights, Including Same-Sex Marriage
As Solicitor General Of Texas, Ho Defended The State’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban
As Solicitor General, Ho Defended Texas’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage, Arguing That Same-Sex Couples Would Not Have “A Stable, Long-Term Relationship.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: At your nomination hearing, Senator Coons asked you about your work as Texas Solicitor General in defending Texas’s ban on same-sex marriage. In that case, In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., you argued that ‘[t]he naturally procreative relationship between a man and woman deserves special societal support and protection — both to encourage procreation . . . and to increase the likelihood that children will be raised by both of their parents, within the context of stable, long-term relationships.’ Do you believe that same-sex marriages less likely to be ‘stable, long-term relationships’ than marriages between a man and a woman? If so, on what basis have you reached that conclusion? HO: The brief you quote represented the position of the State of Texas that ‘[t]he naturally procreative relationship between a man and a woman deserves special societal support and protection,’ in part to ‘increase the likelihood that children will be raised by both of their parents, within the context of stable, long-term relationships.’ The brief cited several U.S. Supreme Court and other decisions, including Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), and Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), aff’g 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971). The State of Texas acknowledged, however, that ‘an individual may enter into any number of worthwhile and life-affirming relationships” outside of “[t]he naturally procreative relationship between a man and a woman.’ To the best of my recollection, the State of Texas did not state a position on the question you pose.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
The Case Was Dismissed After The Death Of One Of The Petitioners. According to the Texas Supreme Court, “On April 11, 2015, Henry Buck (H.B.), the respondent in the trial court and spouse of the Petitioner, passed away. 8. The death of H.B. terminated the marriage between J.B. and H.B. as a matter of law, rendering this appeal and the underlying litigation moot. 9. Petitioner J.B. therefore requests that this Motion be granted and that the Court issue judgment (a) vacating the court of appeals’ and trial court’s decisions, (b) dismissing the case as moot, and (c) ordering costs of court to be paid by each party incurring them.” [Texas Supreme Court, 4/17/15]
Ho Praised An Appointee To Texas Assistant Attorney General Who Called Transgender Children Part Of “Satan’s Plan”
2016: Ho Endorsed Jeff Mateer Who Referred To Transgender Children As Evidence Of “Satan’s Plan.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: In a 2016 op-ed you wrote in a San Antonio newspaper, you praised Jeff Mateer’s appointment as the first assistant Attorney General of Texas, writing that Mateer ‘firmly believes in the profound and abiding importance of protecting and enforcing the legal rights and civil liberties of every Texan.’ Since that time, Mr. Mateer has been nominated to be a judge on the Eastern District of Texas, and it has come to light that he once referred to transgender children as evidence of ‘Satan’s plan.’ Do you stand by your support of Mr. Mateer? HO: I was not aware of these comments at the time I wrote the 2016 op-ed. As a pending judicial nominee, I would defer to the President and members of the United States Senate on who should be nominated and confirmed to the federal bench. It is my understanding that Mr. Mateer is widely regarded as a strong and effective First Assistant Attorney General. FEINSTEIN: Do you agree with Mr. Mateer’s views on transgender children? HO: I believe that every child is a child of God.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Stood By His Endorsement Of Mateer During His Confirmation Hearing To The Fifth Circuit
During Confirmation Hearing, Ho Stood By His Endorsement Of Mateer, Noting He Was “Widely Regarded As A Strong And Effective First Assistant Attorney General” But Said He “Believe[d] Every Child Is A Child Of God.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “In a 2016 op-ed you wrote in a San Antonio newspaper, you praised Jeff Mateer’s appointment as the first assistant Attorney General of Texas, writing that Mateer ‘firmly believes in the profound and abiding importance of protecting and enforcing the legal rights and civil liberties of every Texan.’ Since that time, Mr. Mateer has been nominated to be a judge on the Eastern District of Texas, and it has come to light that he once referred to transgender children as evidence of ‘Satan’s plan.’ Do you stand by your support of Mr. Mateer? I was not aware of these comments at the time I wrote the 2016 op-ed. As a pending judicial nominee, I would defer to the President and members of the United States Senate on who should be nominated and confirmed to the federal bench. It is my understanding that Mr. Mateer is widely regarded as a strong and effective First Assistant Attorney General. Do you agree with Mr. Mateer’s views on transgender children? I believe that every child is a child of God.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Volunteered With An Anti-LGBTQ Law Firm
Ho Volunteered With First Liberty, A Law Firm That Promoted Anti-LBGTQ Discrimination. According to Slate, “James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Ho was confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the 5th Circuit on Dec. 14, 2017. […] He also served as Texas solicitor general and later volunteered with First Liberty, a law firm that purports to defend religious freedom, often by promoting anti-LGBTQ discrimination.” [Slate, 10/25/19]
Ho Misgendered And Dead-Named A Plaintiff, Arguing That Refusing Sex Reassignment Surgery To A Transgender Inmate Was Constitutional
Ho Held That Texas Prison Refusing To Give Sex Reassignment Surgery To Transgender Inmate Did Not Amount To Cruel And Unusual Punishment. According to Ho in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “A state does not inflict cruel and unusual punishment by declining to provide sex reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate. The only federal court of appeals to decide such a claim to date has so held as an en banc court. See Kosilek v. Spencer, 774 F.3d 63, 76–78, 87–89, 96 (1st Cir. 2014) (en banc). The district court in this case so held. And we so hold today.” [United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 3/29/19]
Ho Misgendered And Dead-Named The Plaintiff In His Opinion. According to Ho in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “Gibson was born male. But as his brief explains, he has been diagnosed as having a medical condition known today as ‘gender dysphoria’ or ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ (GID). He has lived as a female since the age of 15 and calls himself Vanessa Lynn Gibson.” [United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 3/29/19]
Ho Stated That Texas’ READER Act, Which Required Booksellers To Individually Rate Books For Sexual Content, Was Constitutional
The READER Act Required Texas Booksellers To Individually Rate Books For Sexual Content To Sell To Public Schools. According to CNN, “Book vendors selling to Texas public schools, ranging from national sellers like Amazon to local bookstores with eight employees, must now rate all the books they sell based on sexual content, according to new legislation signed into law on June 12. If the book vendor fails to comply with state library standards that will be in place by January 1, 2024, they’d be barred from selling to Texas public schools. […] Under the ‘Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources’ Act, or the READER Act, vendors that sell books to Texas public schools must assign every title that describes or portrays sexual conduct one of two labels: sexually explicit or sexually relevant.” [CNN, 7/4/23]
A Judge Ruled That The READER Act Was Unconstitutional And Violated The First Amendment. According to Chron, “Just before the law was set to go into effect, U.S. District Court Judge Alan D. Albright issued a temporary stay prohibiting the state from enforcing it. Three weeks later, he ruled that portions of the law violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment by requiring private businesses to create speech (in the form of book ratings) on the government’s behalf. Then, in January, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit unanimously agreed with Albright, while also letting stand another aspect of the law that created statewide library standards banning sexually explicit books in public schools.” [Chron, 4/17/24]
Ho Disagreed With The Ruling And Argued That The Law Was Constitutional
Ho Argued That The Law Was Constitutional In A Dissent After The Fifth Circuit Voted To Not Rehear The Case. According to Ho in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “There is no basis for holding the READER Act unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has long affirmed that schools have ‘the authority to remove books [from a school library] that are vulgar.’ Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 684 (1986) (citing Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871-72 (1982) (plurality opinion), id. at 879-81 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and in judgment), and id. at 918-20 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)). The panel concluded that the READER Act violates the First Amendment because the Act unconstitutionally compels speech. See Book People, Inc. v. Wong, 91 F.4th 318 (5th Cir. 2024). But I don’t see how. The READER Act doesn’t compel anyone to say anything. It simply provides that any vendor who wishes to sell books to public schools must answer certain questions prior to the sale-just as ordinary consumers often ask questions of merchants before deciding whether to make a purchase.”
[CaseText, 4/16/24]
James Ho And Affirmative Action
Ho Opposed Affirmative Action
Ho Opposed Affirmative Action, Arguing That It Had A Negative Impact On Asian Americans
1996: Ho Wrote An Op-Ed In Favor Of Prop 209 In California Which Opposed Affirmative Action Calling Racial Preferences “Counterproductive.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “FEINSTEIN: In 1996, you wrote an op-ed urging Californians to vote for Proposition 209, which prohibited the state ‘from discriminating or granting preference on the basis of race.’ You argued in relevant part that racial preferences can create a harmful stigma for those who benefit from them, and you wrote that racial ‘[p]references are counterproductive and dilute the message of nondiscrimination that antidiscrimination is supposed to send.’ In what way are racial preferences ‘counterproductive’? HO: There is an on-going public debate over the extent to which various admissions policies positively or negatively affect certain communities, including the Asian American community. Because such issues could someday come before me if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed to be a federal judge, as a pending federal judicial nominee, I should refrain from stating a personal view on those debates. If confirmed, I would follow the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning university admissions policies.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Claimed That Affirmative Action Policies Had A Negative Effect On Asian American Communities. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “HO: There is an on-going public debate over the extent to which various admissions policies positively or negatively affect certain communities, including the Asian American community. Because such issues could someday come before me if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed to be a federal judge, as a pending federal judicial nominee, I should refrain from stating a personal view on those debates. If confirmed, I would follow the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning university admissions policies.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho Said He Would Follow Supreme Court Precedent On University Admissions Policies During His Confirmation Hearing
Ho Said He Would Follow Precedents Of Supreme Court Rulings On University Admissions Policies Including Fisher V. University Of Texas During Confirmation Hearing. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “WHITEHOUSE: You have publicly opposed affirmative action programs. As a federal district court judge, would you uphold Supreme Court precedent that protects these programs, such as Fisher v. University of Texas? HO: If I am so fortunate as to be confirmed to be a federal judge, I would follow the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning university admissions policies, including Fisher” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/22/17]
Ho: “Diversity Has Increasingly Become A Code Word For Discrimination”
In A Workplace Discrimination Case, Ho Wrote A Concurrence To Highlight How “Diversity Has Increasingly Become A Code Word For Discrimination.” According to Ho in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “I write separately to highlight Plaintiff’s contention that the use of the term ‘diversity’ may be evidence of his employer’s discriminatory intent. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that a plant manager told a supervisor that the company ‘needed more diversity in the workplace.’ Ante, at 3. Plaintiff took the reference to ‘diversity’ to mean that the company should hire fewer African Americans in the future, due to the racial composition of the existing workforce at the plant. Cases like this reflect the growing concern that diversity has increasingly become a code word for discrimination.” [United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 12/15/23]
Hos Concurrence Focused On Affirmative Action In Higher Education Despite The Case Focusing On Workplace Discrimination. According to Ho in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “Likewise, courts have warned that diversity has become the ‘‘rationale of convenience’ to support racially discriminatory admissions programs’ at many colleges and universities. […] It’s no defense that a diversity policy may be well intended—and that it’s designed, not to disfavor any particular group, but to favor other groups. That’s because favoring one race necessarily means disfavoring those of another race—whether at a company or on a college campus.” [United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 12/15/23]
James Ho And Political Commentary
Ho Was Criticized For Expressing Political Commentary From The Bench
Law Professors Criticize Ho For Expressing Political Opinions From The Bench
University of California, Irvine Law Professor Said Ho Has Gone Out Of His Way To Make Points About Large Strategic Ideas In His Opinions Rather Than Applying Supreme Court Precedent. According to NPR, “Richard Hasen, a voting rights expert and law professor at the University of California, Irvine, is also among those taking note of Ho, in part because of his unusually aggressive approach for someone new to the bench. ‘Rather than doing what lower federal courts are supposed to do — apply binding Supreme Court precedent — Judge Ho went out of his way to express his agreement with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s views of how campaign finance cases should be resolved,’ Hasen said. Ho also is setting himself apart from a more conventional appellate judge in the way he directs his attention toward big, strategic criticism about the size of government, as opposed to one focused more on the laws at issue in the case, Hasen said. ‘Judge Ho moved fully from a legal role to a policy one when he told readers of his opinion that if they did not like big money in politics, the solution was not campaign finance reform but shrinking the size of government,’ he said. ‘This struck me as wholly apart from his judicial role, and while I believe it would be perfectly fine for Judge Ho to give a speech or write an article on such a question, the view should not have been included in a formal legal opinion.’” [NPR, 7/26/18]
University of Southern California Law Professor Said Ho’s Opinion In Austin Campaign Finance Case “Reads Like A Politician’s Op-Ed.” According to NPR, “Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of Southern California, seemed to agree. Kerr tweeted that Ho’s law clerks ‘should have urged’ he remove a passage ‘that reads like a politician’s op-ed.’” [NPR, 7/26/18]
James Ho And Policing
Ho Supported Protecting Police From Liability And Accountability
Ho Argued In Favor Of Protecting Police From Liability And Accountability
Ho: “If We Want To Stop Mass Shootings, We Should Stop Punishing Police Officers Who Put Their Lives On Their Line To Prevent Them.” According to the ABA Journal, “Judge James Ho dissented Monday when the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant an en banc rehearing in a case involving a police shooting of a black man. Law & Crime and CNN noted the opinion. ‘If we want to stop mass shootings,’ Ho wrote, ‘we should stop punishing police officers who put their lives on the line to prevent them.’” [ABA Journal, 10/24/19]
Ho Decried The “Social Costs” Of Civil Suits Against Police And Said Courts Should “Balance” Rights Of Victims With Impact On Officer Morale. According to Slate, “Ho has expressed this sentiment before. In an August opinion, he bemoaned the ‘social costs’ of civil lawsuits against the police. ‘Those social costs,’ he wrote, ‘are particularly stark today given widespread news of low officer morale and shortages in officer recruitment.’ He argued that courts should ‘balance’ the rights of police brutality victims against the impact of liability on officer morale.” [Slate, 10/25/19]