The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Supreme Court Unfairly Attacked A "Careful" District Court Judge Who Faithfully Discharged His Office Under Pressure
Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues owe Judge Hendrix an apology.
Justice Scalia once ridiculed the coastal elites on his Court who fail to represent the "vast expanse in-between." Somewhere in that expanse is the city of Lubbock, Texas. Home to Texas Tech University, Lubbock is a five hour drive to Albuquerque or Dallas.
At present, there is one active District Court Judge in the Lubbock Division of the Northern District of Texas, Judge James Wesley Hendrix. Hendrix spent many years working in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. He started as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. In 2012, he became Chief of the Appellate Division. In this capacity, he coordinated with the DOJ Criminal Appellate Section, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General. In 2015, he served on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee. For those with short memories, all of these promotions occurred during the Obama Administration.
In March 2016, President Obama nominated Hendrix to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas. A hearing was held in September 2016, but his nomination expired in January 2017 at the end of the Congress. Two years later, President Trump nominated Hendrix to the same court. He was reported out of committee by a 22-0 vote, and was confirmed by an 89-1 vote.
I provide this history because most people had never heard of Judge Hendrix before A.A.R.P. v. Trump. Indeed, if you only read the Supreme Court's decision, you might think that Hendrix was just another right-wing reactionary judge in Texas, who negligently, if not intentionally, moved far too slow, and failed to grant emergency relief in a timely fashion. My ire at the Supreme Court's decision on Friday was compounded by the fact that I've gotten to know Judge Hendrix well over the years. I have spoken in Lubbock several times, and he graciously attends the event with his clerks. He is a careful and meticulous judge who discharges his duties faithfully. I've already laid out the chronology in pain-staking detail. Justice Alito's dissent states everything clearly. And Paul Cassell's Op-Ed reinforces that chronology, as does Judge Ho's concurrence.
I would wager that if I surveyed any federal trial court judge, at random, they would agree with my assessment of Judge Hendrix's performance. But you don't have to do a survey. Look no further than the concurring opinion from Circuit Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez. She wrote that Judge Hendrix's "failure to issue the requested ruling" within such a compressed window cannot reasonably be viewed as "an effective denial of injunctive relief." And Judge Ramirez is not a right-wing reactionary on the Fifth Circuit. She served as a U.S. magistrate judge for more than two decades in the Northern District of Texas. President Biden nominated her to the Fifth Circuit. Judge Ramirez knows from first-hand experience how trial courts function, and saw Judge Hendrix's time-frame as reasonable.
Let me provide even more background. While the nine-member Supreme Court decides about fifty merits cases a year, federal district court judges have far heavier dockets. According to the latest statistics, Judge Hendrix closed out about 700 cases in the span of twelve months. He personally receives more than 20% of all new criminal cases in the district. One of those cases was United States v. Armstead (6:24-cr-00019). This case may not generate as much headlines as Abrego Garcia or A.A.R.P., but the facts here galling. The defendant used electronic devices to cyberstalk minors across the country, and induced them to produce sexually explicit images.
Believe it or not, at the same time that the ACLU was demanding an immediate resolution of its case, Armstead was on trial. Fourteen minor victims traveled to Lubbock to testify the same week as the A.A.R.P. case was rocketing through the courts. Should Judge Hendrix have told those victims to go home, because the ACLU had an urgent motion? When I was clerking, I was taught that criminal matters always take precedents over any civil matter. On the afternoon of Thursday, April 17, the case went to the jury. Several hours later, the pivotal voicemail came in from the ACLU. On top of managing a complex trial, Judge Hendrix still managed to issue a briefing schedule to ensure the government could reply.
There is so much more to say here. Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues owe Judge Hendrix an apology. The reckless opinion they issued on Friday did far more damage to the judiciary than any boxes of pizza.
