Judge Andrew Oldham answers the "sham history" charge, saying lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedent
Andrew OldhamFifth Circuit judge writing in concurrence
In a concurrence, Judge Andrew Oldham responded to Judge Douglas's description of the government's history as a "sham history," writing that she may hold her own view of the history but that lower-court judges must follow Supreme Court precedent.
“While she’s entitled to her opinion on the history, the same cannot be said for Supreme Court precedent.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Fifth Circuit rejects bond hearings for three immigration detainees; dissenters invoke due process
The Fifth Circuit rejected three immigration detainees' constitutional claims to individualized bond hearings during removal proceedings. The October 23 en banc ruling reverses habeas relief, with Judge Priscilla Richman concurring in the judgment. Dissenters argue that detention requires more constitutional protection.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The court rejects these petitioners' constitutional bond-hearing claims. The majority expressly recognizes that the Fifth Amendment applies to them.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Oldham had argued that neither English nor American habeas history prohibits the government from detaining a noncitizen for three weeks pending removal proceedings.
After the quotation
He then criticized the dissent for relying on a law-review article that argues the Supreme Court's decision in Demore v. Kim was wrong.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The case concerns detaining these petitioners during removal proceedings without the individualized bond hearings they sought. Oldham defends the ruling upholding that detention and rejects the dissent's challenge to it, so we labeled it as defending the detention.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Dana M. Douglas
More from this case
Read the full caseEtelson challenges the textual basis for the detention policy
“the administration's argument asks the Court to stretch federal law beyond its reasonable limits.”Read statement
Mehta argues that detention requires a separate liberty analysis
“A bond hearing does not confer lawful status, prevent removal, or second-guess Congress's admissibility rules.”Read statement
Castro calls the ruling unconstitutional
“violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects everyone.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Judge Andrew Oldham answers the "sham history" charge, saying lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedent
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7074-in-a-concurrence-judge-andrew-oldham-responded-to
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Judge Andrew Oldham answers the "sham history" charge, saying lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedent". First published: 2026-10-28. Last updated: 2026-10-28. https://disputeindex.com/events/7074-in-a-concurrence-judge-andrew-oldham-responded-to