In a scathing rebuke, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, issued a blistering court order, accusing the ACLU of attempting to influence the court through ex parte communications, which are prohibited in any court in the United States. Ex parte is when one side speaks with a judge without informing the other side. This is a serious breach of ethics in a high-profile case concerning illegal aliens detained at the Bluebonnet Detention Center.
The case, W.M.M. v. Trump, involves petitioners represented by ACLU Deputy Director Lee Gelernt, who left a voicemail message for the judge. He demanded that the judge halt all moving of illegal aliens from the Bluebonnet Detention Center. Gelernt’s message, which the Court attached to its order, claimed that his clients were being coerced into signing “Alien Enemy orders” for immediate deportation.
According to the order reviewed by The Gateway Pundit:
“As a general rule, substantive ex parte communications with the Court are prohibited. The rules governing judicial ethics prohibit judges from engaging in substantive ex parte communications concerning pending matters.
Ex parte communications may be fraught with peril, and judges must take great care with respect to ex parte communications even in the most exigent of circumstances.
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges explains that judges should not permit or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers.
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELEven when circumstances may require such communications, the Code limits such communications to situations where the ex parte communication does not address substantive matters and the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication.”
“The Court thus notes that the petitioners had not established prior to the voicemail any reason to believe that ex parte communications of any kind were appropriate.
In light of the rules governing ex parte communications and the substance of the voicemail, the Court notes for the record that it will not permit or consider the voicemail
The Code of Conduct for Federal Judges instructs judges that if a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested.
The Court therefore enters this Order notifying the government of the contents of this voicemail
The Court did not return Mr. Gelernt’s phone call and did not otherwise have any ex parte communications with the petitioners or their counsel.”
Below is a transcript of the voicemail:
LEE GELERNT: Hi. This is Lee Gelernt. I’m a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union calling about an emergency in A.A.R.P.–P as in Peter–v. Trump, 25-059. The phone number is (646) 842-XXXX. It is 7:30 p.m. tonight.
We understand that our clients at the Bluebonnet Detention Center are being given orders to sign, Alien Enemy orders, and told they may be removed as soon as tonight or first thing in the morning. This is related to the Alien Enemies Act.
We would like to talk to the Judge immediately or– and have the Judge issue an order to have them not removed.
The Judge’s understanding today in his opinion was that the government’s representations would keep the proposed class safe. It appears that they are being asked to–to be–to sign papers for their immediate removal.
Thank you. Again, it’s (646) 842-XXXX. Thank you.
More From The Gateway Pundit:
In a fiery dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Alito took direct aim at the Court’s liberal majority, blasting their eleventh-hour injunction as legally questionable and procedurally incoherent.
“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order,” Alito wrote in his opinion.
“I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U. S. (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures.”
Alito said that the Supreme Court intervened before the Fifth Circuit had the chance to weigh in. That violates the normal hierarchy of judicial review.
