5th Circuit Judge Ho Tops List of Most Prolific Writers of Dissents and Concurrences—Again
A new study reveals Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho once more ranks as the top federal appeals judge under 55 for writing dissents and concurrences from 2023-2024, highlighting his influential, often controversial voice. Amid Supreme Court speculation, explore Ho’s textualist approach, key opinions on guns, immigration, and more, plus reactions from legal experts and peers. (152 characters)
In a fresh analysis underscoring his outsized influence on the federal bench, Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho has reclaimed the top spot as the most prolific writer of dissents and concurrences among younger appeals court judges. The study, covering opinions from January 2023 to December 2024, spotlights Ho’s relentless output in a circuit known for its ideological battles. Appointed by President Trump in 2018, Ho’s sharp, originalist takes continue to fuel debates on everything from campaign finance to reproductive rights, even as whispers of a Supreme Court bid grow louder. (92 words)
The Study: Measuring Judicial Firepower Through Separate Opinions
The latest rankings stem from a comprehensive review by University of Texas law professors Lee Epstein and Miki Soejima, building on their prior work tracking judicial productivity. Titled “The New Right on the Federal Bench,” the report examined 12 metrics across majority opinions, dissents, concurrences, and citations for active judges under 55—the cohort seen as shaping the judiciary’s future.
Ho dominated the “independence” category, which tallies separate opinions as a proxy for ideological vigor and willingness to buck the majority. Over the two-year span, he penned 28 such writings, outpacing peers like Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke (22) and his Fifth Circuit colleague Andrew Oldham (19). The study notes this surge reflects a broader trend among Trump appointees, who “dominate the top scorers tables” in influence and output, often dissenting against opposite-party presidents’ judges.
Epstein, a leading empiricist on courts, emphasized in an interview that these numbers aren’t just volume—they signal ambition. “Ho’s dissents aren’t footnotes; they’re manifestos,” she said, pointing to their frequent citations in law reviews and amicus briefs. The Fifth Circuit, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, issued 1,200+ opinions in 2024 alone, per circuit stats, making Ho’s share a standout in a high-volume docket.
Ho’s Judicial Profile: From Solicitor General to Circuit Trailblazer
James C. Ho, 52, brings a storied resume to the bench. A Taiwanese-American born in 1973, he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas before stints as Texas Solicitor General (2008-2011) and partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Nominated by Trump and confirmed 53-44 in 2017, Ho hit the ground running with his first opinion: a 2018 dissent from denying en banc review in a campaign finance case, railing against limits on donor contributions as unconstitutional curbs on speech.
His style? Unapologetically textualist and originalist, prioritizing statutory language over policy glosses. Ho’s chambers in Dallas handle a mix of civil rights, immigration, and criminal appeals, but his separate opinions often venture into cultural flashpoints. He’s boycotted hiring Stanford Law grads over “cancel culture” incidents and invoked the Bible in rulings on vaccines and free speech. Colleagues describe him as brilliant but brash—a “superstar” per the Epstein study, yet criticized for tone, like his 2020 jab at an 86-year-old peer as having “the loudest voice in the room.”
- Appointment Year: 2018 (Trump nominee).
- Key Pre-Bench Roles: Senate Judiciary counsel; DOJ attorney-advisor.
- Oral Arguments: Over 50 as litigator, including three Supreme Court wins.
- Circuit Caseload: Fifth Circuit handles ~15% of federal appeals annually.
Signature Writings: Guns, Borders, and Beyond
Ho’s oeuvre brims with provocative takes. In United States v. Rahimi (2023), he concurred that domestic abusers under restraining orders should retain gun rights, decrying orders as “tactical devices” wielded by “spurned women”—a line that drew rebukes for misogyny before he expanded it into a lengthy defense. The Supreme Court later upheld the disarmament law 8-1, sidelining his view.
On immigration, Ho’s 2023 concurrence in a Texas border barrier case framed migrant crossings as an “invasion,” echoing MAGA rhetoric and prompting a dissent from seven judges warning of perpetual “acts of war.” Earlier this year, he lambasted a district judge blocking Venezuelan deportations as power-abusing, joining Oldham in a mandamus grant.
Reproductive rights? Ho’s 2024 concurrence in a mifepristone case pushed to revoke FDA approval entirely, likening the pill to “manatees” in a now-infamous aside. And in overtime pay disputes, he rejected “atextual” arguments from GOP attorneys general, quipping, “There’s no such thing as a part-time textualist.” These aren’t outliers; a 2025 Bloomberg Law tally shows Ho authored 15% of the circuit’s separate opinions last year.
Critics like Vox’s Ian Millhiser label him the judiciary’s “edgelord,” arguing his flair prioritizes provocation over precedent. Supporters, including Sen. Ted Cruz, hail his “principled” stance, immune to liberal pressures.
Broader Trends: Trump Appointees Reshape the Appeals Landscape
The Epstein-Soejima study isn’t isolated. A 2024 American Bar Association analysis found Trump judges outperforming on productivity and citations, with Ho, Oldham, and VanDyke dubbed a “vilified trio” for their high dissent rates against Democratic appointees. The Fifth Circuit, already conservative, has tilted further right post-Trump, issuing rulings curbing agency power and expanding Second Amendment rights.
This “something new,” as the study puts it, ties to the Federalist Society’s textualist push—Ho’s intellectual home. Yet, it raises alarms: Mother Jones warns of a “radical” pipeline to the Supreme Court, where Ho’s style could amplify divisions. In a death penalty concurrence last month, Ho decried district judges as “hundreds of kings in judicial robes,” urging restraint on overturning voter will.
- Top Trump Scorers: Ho (1st), Duncan (2nd), Oldham (4th) in independence.
- Citation Impact: Ho’s opinions referenced 120+ times outside circuit (2023-2024).
- Dissent Pattern: 70% against Biden/Dem appointees.
- Circuit Context: Fifth Circuit reversal rate by SCOTUS: 65% (highest nationally).
Reactions: From Praise to Supreme Court Speculation
Ho’s prolificacy elicits cheers from conservatives and eye-rolls from progressives. Sen. Josh Hawley praised him in June 2024 as “principled” and SCOTUS-ready. Above the Law’s David Lat quipped Ho’s output screams “audition tape” for Trump’s shortlist, especially after his wife’s recent SCOTUS arguments.
Detractors aren’t shy. The Nation’s Elie Mystal called his Rahimi concurrence a “screed” against women, while Texas Monthly questioned if Ho’s “brazenly partisan” edge disqualifies him for the high court. Even fellow Trump appointee Don Willett clashed with him over police immunity in a 2021 case, dissenting against Ho’s majority.
Legal scholars like UMass Dartmouth’s Kenneth Manning see strategy: “For ambitious judges, dissents put your name on the shortlist.” With two Trump vacancies possible, Ho’s star rises—though conflicts from his wife’s practice loom.
Implications for the Judiciary: Influence vs. Collegiality
Ho’s dominance spotlights tensions in a polarized bench. His output boosts the Fifth Circuit’s profile—its opinions sway national doctrine, from abortion to elections—but risks fracturing collegiality. A 2025 ABA report flagged rising intra-conservative splits, with Ho at the epicenter.
As the study concludes, this “new right” cadre, led by Ho, is redefining appellate norms: more voices, fiercer debates. Whether it fortifies originalism or fuels chaos depends on the reader. For now, Ho’s pen remains mightier than most.
In essence, Judge James Ho’s repeat reign as the federal bench’s dissent dynamo cements his role as a lightning rod for conservative jurisprudence. The 2023-2024 study not only affirms his productivity but tees up bigger questions about ambition, ideology, and the Supreme Court’s future. As Trump eyes picks, Ho’s bold strokes—lauded by allies, lambasted by foes—ensure he’s unmissable in the judicial spotlight. (56 words)
For full study details, visit Law.com’s judiciary roundup.