American Family Association Action (AFA Action), is a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to advancing biblical, family values in society and government by educating and influencing public policy. AFA Action is also the Governmental Affairs Affiliate of American Family Association (AFA).
Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Click below to download more research data for The Honorable James Ho.
* You have successfully registered your email address.
Judge Ho is an ardent defender of originalism and the separation of powers. Ho asserted that originalism should not be controversial and that jurists “must not be afraid of being booed” as a result of issuing rulings that are unpopular with “cultural elites” and those who consider the Constitution to be “trash.” Ho has criticized “fair weather originalism,” and said judges are not truly binding themselves to the text “if [they] follow it only when people like the result.”
Ho wrote about judging, “being an originalist is just part of the job description because being an originalist just means being faithful to whatever text you’re interpreting.”
Judge Ho believes in allowing Bishops to express objection to abortion not only in belief, but also in action. In a concurrence, Ho wrote, “[t]he First Amendment expressly guarantees the free exercise of religion—including the right of the bishops to express their profound objection to the moral tragedy of abortion, by offering free burial services for fetal remains.”
Ho has acknowledged the presence of religion throughout government.
Judge Ho has vehemently denounced viewpoint discrimination against conservatives on college campuses. In his words, “[e]xpressing religious viewpoints gets you vilified. But claiming a right to eliminate a religious group gets you the benefit of the doubt.”
Judge Ho in dissent has declared, “[t]he Founders understood that the right to free exercise would require more than simply neutrality toward religion. Rather, when government regulation and religious activity conflict, the right to free exercise would require that the government accommodate the religious practice, rather than the reverse.”
Ho wrote a powerful concurrence in Dobbs before it reached the Supreme Court. Judge Ho stated in his concurrence: “The opinion issued by the district court displays an alarming disrespect for the millions of Americans who believe that babies deserve legal protection during pregnancy as well as after birth, and that abortion is the immoral, tragic, and violent taking of innocent human life. ”
He has labeled abortion a “moral tragedy.”
Ho concurred in Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton and explained how the passage of time often reveals faulty science, noting that “[s]omeday, scientists may look back on today’s abortion debates as shocking and barbaric—just as we look back in disbelief at those who ridiculed and ostracized proponents of handwashing and sterilizing surgical instruments to prevent disease and infection.”
Ho defended a Texas ban on same-sex "marriage" as the Texas solicitor general.
In a commonsense opinion, Judge Ho wrote that “[a] state does not inflict cruel and unusual punishment by declining to provide sex reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate.”
Ho is a naturalized U.S. citizen who believes that what unites us as Americans is a shared love of freedom.
Ho has argued that the “legal institution of marriage is about biology, not bigotry.”
In October 2023, Ho interviewed with the Washington Examiner concerning his refusal to hire law clerks from elite schools such as Yale and Stanford because the cancel culture at those schools is “antithetical to America.”
Ho noted that “Christians should expect to be criticized,” and read from 1 Peter 4, which states, among other things: “rejoice, in as much as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when His glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed.”
Ho understands that the Second Amendment is the “ultimate guarantor” of all other liberties and has criticized judges for treating it as a “second-class” right. While serving as the Solicitor General of Texas, Ho wrote an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago on behalf of 38 states challenging Chicago’s ban on handguns. In this brief, Ho wrote: “the right to keep and bear arms [is] the ultimate guarantor of all the other liberties enjoyed by Americans.”
Ho seems to have some conflicting views surrounding race and education.
Ho was lead counsel for appellees in Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. defending affirmative action at UT Austin.
Some of Judge Ho’s views on racial policy and color blindness seem to contradict how he previously viewed race when it came to school admissions. In a concurring opinion, Judge Ho wrote, "Prohibiting racial discrimination means we must be blind to race. Disparate impact theory requires the opposite. . . .” This may be viewed as contradictory to the argument Ho made in Fisher.
Judge Ho has highlighted the danger of granting power to those in unelected positions. Ho authored a dissent that reads, “The right to vote means nothing if we abandon our constitutional commitments and allow the real work of lawmaking to be exercised by private interests colluding with agency bureaucrats, rather than by elected officials accountable to the American voter.”
Ho has been an active member of the Federalist Society for 26 years and has held 10 different leadership positions within the organization.
Ho was also a dedicated volunteer attorney for First Liberty Institute and donated thousands of pro bono hours.
Ho has opposed big government and written judicial opinions reflecting this view. Dissenting after the Fifth Circuit upheld a city's campaign donation limit, Judge Ho argued that “if you don’t like big money in politics, then you should oppose big government in our lives.” Ho also opined: “If there is too much money in politics, it’s because there’s too much government.” According to Judge Ho, the large flow of money into politics is “the inevitable result of a government that would be unrecognizable to our Founders.”
Judge Ho has supported religious objections to vaccine mandates, including mandates for the COVID-19 vaccine.
In his dissent in Sambrano v. United Airlines, a case involving United Airlines’ COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all employees, Judge Ho wrote, "Forcing individuals to choose between their faith and their livelihood imposes an obvious and substantial burden on religion. Make no mistake: Vaccine mandates like the one United [Airlines] is attempting to impose here present a crisis of conscience for many people of faith.” Judge Ho also wrote, “It is difficult to imagine how a crisis of conscience, whether instigated by government or industry, could be remedied by an award of monetary damages. Take this case: The person who acquiesces to United's mandate despite his faith doesn't lose any pay. But he will have to wrestle with self-doubt—questioning whether he has lived up to the calling of his faith. Likewise, the person who refuses must also wrestle with self-doubt—questioning whether his faith has hurt his family, and whether living up to his commitments was worth sacrificing the interests of his loved ones.”
*Citations are available in the downloadable PDF research document above.
Best meets the ten principles of a constitutional judge.
Rating: GreyNeutral. Record is not as fully developed. Cannot be rated as “green” or “red.”
Rating: RedFails to meet the ten principles of a constitutional judge.
AFA Action is a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to advancing biblical, family values in society and government by educating and influencing public policy. AFA Action is also the Governmental Affairs Affiliate of American Family Association.