Judicial Reform Sought After ACLU’s Tactics In Deportation Case

Three members Congress sent a joint letter to the Judicial Conference signaling they are considering judicial “reforms” in response to outrageous behavior in a case challenging one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration. An attorney personally phoned a judge asking for his favor, then tried to assert a timeline for the case.

“The Committee has jurisdiction over federal courts and judicial proceedings,” the letter reads. “Pursuant to this authority, the Committee is considering potential legislative reforms to judicial proceedings.” 

The May 6 letter was signed by Rep Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the Judiciary Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Ohio, chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, and Chip Roy, R-Texas, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government. It asks the Judicial Conference what it plans to do to strengthen the prohibition against attorneys engaging in one-on-one communications with judges.

Immediately after Trump issued a March 14 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals who are members of the designated foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward Foundation went to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of five Venezuelans who were to be removed form the U.S.

Chief Judge James Boasberg made a number of rulings in the case, including two temporary restraining orders (TRO), one of which prevented the government from removing the five Venezuelan nationals. The other prevented the government from implementing Trump’s proclamation nationwide.

These TROs were challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that Boasberg lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Despite that, Boasberg continued to hold hearings on the case, including an emergency hearing on April 18 to consider a TRO request from the ACLU.

Meanwhile, the ACLU was bringing similar cases around the country. Judge James Hendrix in the Northern District of Texas denied a TRO on April 17 and, according to the letter, one of the ACLU lawyers representing the petitioners attempted to call Judge Hendrix at 7:34 p.m. to request a stay of removal.  

Hendrix didn’t answer. “The lawyer left a voicemail discussing ‘substantive matters’ about the case, including requesting the judge to issue an order. Such ‘substantive ex parte communications with the Court are prohibited,’” the letter said.

Hendrix admonished the lawyer “not to seek ex parte communications with the judge in this pending matter.”

After realizing that Judge Hendrix was not going to respond to the voicemail, the petitioners filed a second TRO motion at 12:34 a.m. on April 18, 2025.

“Hendrix ordered the government to respond within 24 hours. But later that day, at 12:48 p.m., before the government could respond, the ACLU filed another motion demanding that Hendrix either issue a TRO or hold a status conference by 1:30 p.m. — 42 minutes after first requesting the conference — or else they would seek appellate relief,” according to the letter.

“This series of events raises several concerns. First, the rapid pace of these proceedings prevents courts from adequately developing the factual record, both for consideration at the trial level and review at the appellate level. In particular, the ACLU’s breakneck appeal to the Fifth Circuit prevented Judge Hendrix from developing any sort of meaningful record because it divested him of jurisdiction,” the letter said.

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.