>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
He demanded the judge “talk to the Judge immediately” or issue an order to stop removals. But Judge Hendrix wasn’t having it — not one bit.
In his formal rebuke, Judge Hendrix emphasized that Gelernt’s actions could have handed the ACLU a “substantive, procedural, and tactical advantage” — something explicitly forbidden by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges.
“As a general rule, substantive ex parte communications with the Court are prohibited,” the judge explained, citing key legal precedents. “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.”
He continued, noting that the message “does not meet [the] narrow exception” for emergency communications and slammed the ACLU for attempting to sneak around rules instead of playing fair. The judge made it clear: this was an unethical attempt to manipulate the system.
Adding insult to injury, the ACLU had already been told to explain why they hadn’t notified the government of their emergency request — a basic requirement under Federal Rule 65(b). Rather than comply, they chose to go rogue with a voicemail plea.
In response, Judge Hendrix said the Court “will not permit or consider the voicemail.” He followed proper ethics protocol by informing the government of the content and stated unequivocally that “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.”
Just Released: Trump White House Collector’s Bobblehead!
Below is the actual voicemail transcript from 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…
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…
We would like to talk to the Judge immediately or– and have the Judge issue an order to have them not removed…”
This episode is just the latest chapter in the ACLU’s ongoing war against immigration enforcement. The organization has repeatedly tried to block deportations and has a long history of prioritizing foreign nationals over the interests of American citizens.
Earlier this year, the ACLU rushed to the Supreme Court to halt deportations of Venezuelans detained at the same Bluebonnet facility. Without waiting for the lower court’s ruling, the Court’s liberal wing issued a late-night emergency order to block the removals.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, tore into the Court’s actions.
“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief… without giving the lower courts a chance to rule… and without providing any explanation for its order,” Alito wrote.
Alito stressed the obvious — both the Executive Branch and the Judiciary have a duty to follow the law, not political pressure. Yet again, the ACLU and its allies seem to believe the rules don’t apply when they’re fighting for open borders.
“This Court should follow established procedures,” Alito warned, blasting the decision as reckless and legally unsound.
As the legal battle unfolds, Judge Hendrix’s order sends a crystal-clear message: no one is above the rules — not even the ACLU.
While radical groups scramble to use any means necessary to interfere with immigration enforcement, this judge is making it known that the courtroom is no place for games, voicemails, or backdoor deals.
