The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Federal Courts May Not Be Denny's, But They Are Open 24/7/365
Justice Kavanaugh's Trump v. CASA concurrence appears to reply to Judge Ho.
On remand in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit suggested it was unreasonable to expect federal district courts to be open and available to respond to emergency pleadings at all hours of the night. He wrote:
We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court—not a Denny's. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion. If this is going to become the norm, then we should say so: District judges are hereby expected to be available 24 hours a day—and the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should secure from Congress the resources and staffing necessary to ensure 24-hour operations in every district court across the country.
Whether or not the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office have provided the relevant resources, federal law already requires the federal courts to be open for business around the clock. Justice Kavanaugh makes this point in his Trump v. CASA concurrence, in which he writes:
Some might object that this Court is not well equipped to make those significant decisions—namely, decisions about the interim status of a major new federal statute or executive action—on an expedited basis. But district courts and courts of appeals are likewise not perfectly equipped to make expedited preliminary judgments on important matters of this kind. Yet they have to do so, and so do we. By law, federal courts are open and can receive and review applications for relief 24/7/365. See 28 U. S. C. §452 ("All courts of the United States shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing proper papers . . . and making motions and orders").
As it happens, judges (and justices) are often expected to be available throughout the night, such as when there is a pending execution and last-minute stay requests or other filings can be expected. Granting of such requests can also prompt middle-of-the-night responses (as occurred here). If such proceedings are expected in the context of capital sentences, it is not altogether clear why they should not be expected where the government is preparing to permanently remove someone from the United States and send them to a foreign prison, particularly if there are reasons to believe the government is racing to act before courts can intervene. Regardless, whether we should expect late-night proceedings in the context of deportation, federal law deems federal courts are "always open," even if most filings do not need to be considered on anything remotely approaching an expedited basis.
So while a district court may not be a Denny's, it is formally open to hear business 24/7/365.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Many industries have people on call. This is the price you pay for the honor of Big Stuffin' as a humble servant of the people.
Sure, district courts are open 24/7/365. But does that really articulate what the standard is for acting on an emergency appeal. Certainly with an execution pending and petition activity happening, a judge knows to be on call. It's less clear in these deportation circumstances, as I'm unsure whether it's justified for the plaintiffs to pretend that every deportation is imminent, just because the government is not required to disclose when it might act. Leapfrogging an appeals court because it hasn't responded in a couple of hours on your emergency appeal seems a bit of overreach, but maybe not.
Given that, it might seem reasonable that the Maryland district court has entered an order where all such cases receive a limited TRO upon filing. The problem of course with that (just like the recently decided question about national injunctions) is whether any equitable power or rules of procedure authorize such a thing. Or whether a judge can enjoin the government from deporting if it won't answer about its intended time frame to deport.
As Justice Barrett just made clear to Justice Jackson, courts may not overreach just because they perceive the executive doing so.
I expect eventually the Fed will converge on a uniform rule that deportees get 96 hour notice or some such. Certainly the Court had suggested (in dicta) that due process implies sufficient time to actually file without putting a hard clock on it.
Still, it seems prudent, especially for folks showing up at ICE meetings to be given notice and opportunity to either challenge their removal or leave in a somewhat orderly fashion.
My admittedly quite limited experience is that a document is first filed with the clerk of the court....who keeps regular federal office hours. The clerk receives the document, stamps it repeatedly (at least in the old days, not sure what tech has improved) and then it's transmitted to the appropriate judges clerk.
Is that not the process?
How is the court supposed to handle edge cases like 3AM on Christmas day?
One can literally go to a judge's house. It is done with search warrants all the time.
Documents are filed electronically; the ECF system does not keep regular federal office hours.
That's about as timely as those old bank night deposit receptacles.
I bet Ho was happy to be on duty 24 hours a day to stop the depredations of the Biden administration.
For purposes of filing, sure. It is, however, a bit much to assume that a particular judge will be actively reviewing submissions at 12:34 a.m. How late are they supposed to stay up? Do you want them napping on the bench the next day?
Sure, fine.
Two things can be true:
1. That lower court judge didn't need to stay up late, or respond as fast as they wanted to the emergency "please stop this before the plane takes off" request they claimed they needed. If the judge judged that he needed more time to decide, OK.
2. By not acting that fast, their request was effectively denied. So it was fine to appeal up the chain.
If someone asks for that kind of relief when there's no real urgency, and even appeals it before getting the trip judge's response...then the appeals court and SCOTUS can ignore or deny the request too.
I don't know that this "deeming" actually requires that the system respond as quickly to something filed at 2AM on a holiday weekend, as at 8AM on on a random weekday. I would think it just requires that it be POSSIBLE to file stuff 24/7, without it being rejected for showing up outside business hours.
That's how everyone always interpreted it. If a motion response is due by August 15, then I have up until 11:59pm to get it filed. Under the old rules it would have to be filed by 4:59pm or else the Clerk would mark it filed the following day.
I don't think anyone ever read this as having a judge at your beck and call 24/7/365 and I don't think people will read it this way after today either. Can I just show up at the judge's house in the middle of the night and start chatting about a scheduling conflict in a pending case? If he complains, can I tell him that Justice Kavanaugh says he is on the clock?
Only 365??? How about leap years???
I was going to comment that it took a leap of faith, but I was a couple of minutes too late.
How about 24/7/52?
24 hours a day
7 days a week
52 weeks a year
I'm being pedantic of course.
Is the implication here, that judges are biased against being required to be available after normal business hours?
Judge Ho longs for banker's hours for the imperial judiciary.
Has there ever been another judge named so aptly as Ho?
(I have appeared before a municipal court judge named Lawless.)
Your disdain for him amuses me. Ho needs to be put onto SCOTUS as soon as a seat opens up.
The Democrats would rather have mediocre women of color who vote as doctrinaires than people actually qualified.
(Un?)fortunately, there are two federal judges named Ho, the fifth circuit judge and a liberal district judge in SDNY.
Even when a case has enough evidence to be a Grand Slam win, parties need to be able to file morning, noon, and night.
Having a buy one, get one free for filing costs wouldn't go unloved.
This has always been the case, no? "Hell and chancery . . . ."