## Facts

- In 2025, the U.S. State Department designated the Venezuelan organization Tren de Aragua (TdA) as a foreign terrorist organization.
- President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals whom federal authorities identified as TdA members.
- Two detainees, identified by initials (including A.A.R.P. and W.M.M.), filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking habeas-related relief and a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop what they alleged would be summary removals under the AEA.
- On April 17, 2025, the district court denied the requested TRO.
- Within hours, putative class members received notices stating they would be removed under the AEA “tonight or tomorrow,” providing roughly 24 hours’ warning.
- The notices did not explain how detainees could contest their AEA designation or removal, or how to seek review before removal.
- Shortly after midnight on April 18, the detainees filed an emergency TRO motion in the district court, seeking immediate action to prevent removal.
- More than 12 hours passed without a district court ruling while removal remained imminent; the record reflected government steps toward removal on April 18, including transporting detainees to an airport and later returning them to the detention facility.
- Treating the district court’s nonaction as a constructive denial, the detainees appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and also applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for an injunction.
- The Supreme Court first entered interim relief directing the government not to remove any putative class member pending further order.
- The Fifth Circuit later dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the detainees had not given the district court sufficient time to act and denying related emergency relief.
- The Supreme Court treated the detainees’ application as including a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether, given imminent removal, the district court’s failure to rule for more than 12 hours on an emergency TRO motion had the practical effect of refusing injunctive relief, making the matter appealable and within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction.
2. Whether notice of removal roughly 24 hours before removal, without information on how to contest the AEA designation or obtain judicial review, provided constitutionally adequate due process.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should grant an injunction pending further proceedings to prevent removals that could moot judicial review and cause irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court (per curiam) treated the application for injunctive relief as including a petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit’s judgment.
- The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that, in the extreme time-sensitive setting presented, the district court’s nonaction on the emergency TRO motion had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief; the Fifth Circuit therefore erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction.
- The Court concluded that notice roughly 24 hours before removal, when it provided no meaningful information about how to challenge removal or secure review, was not constitutionally adequate in the circumstances.
- The Court granted injunctive relief preventing the government from removing members of the putative class under the AEA pending further proceedings.
- Justice Kavanaugh concurred. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas.

## Legal Principles

- When government action is imminent and time constraints make meaningful review impossible, a district court’s failure to act on an emergency request for injunctive relief may be treated as a constructive denial for appellate purposes.
- A court of appeals may exercise jurisdiction where the practical effect of the district court’s nonaction is the refusal of an injunction.
- Due process in expedited-removal settings requires notice and a real opportunity to seek judicial review before removal; notice that is both very short and provides no direction on how to contest removal may be constitutionally insufficient.
- Injunctive relief pending further proceedings may be warranted to prevent irreparable harm and to preserve access to habeas review before removal occurs.

## Conclusion

In *A.A.R.P. v. Trump*, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdictional dismissal and ordered temporary injunctive relief barring AEA removals of the putative class while litigation continues, ruling that the district court’s delay functioned as a denial in light of imminent removals and that last-minute, noninformative removal notices failed to provide adequate due process.


A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. _ (2025)