A.A.R.P. v. Trump & the Alien Enemies Act

A.A.R.P. v. Trump covers an application for injunctive relief filed by Venezuelan nationals detained under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).  The detainees, identified as members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization, sought to prevent their summary removal from the United States under the AEA.  The case involves complex legal questions about due process rights, the adequacy of notice before removal, and the applicability of class-wide relief in habeas proceedings.

Background

1. Presidential Action: President Trump issued a proclamation invoking the AEA to remove Venezuelan nationals associated with TdA.

2. Detainees' Claims: The detainees argued that the removal notices they received provided insufficient time and information to exercise their due process rights, including seeking habeas relief.

3. District Court Proceedings: The District Court denied the detainees' motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and did not act on their emergency motion for relief within the timeframe demanded by the detainees.  The detainees appealed to the Fifth Circuit and applied to the Supreme Court for injunctive relief.

Supreme Court Decision

The Court issued a temporary injunction to prevent the removal of the detainees and preserve its jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.  It treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, granted the petition, vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Key Points of the Decision

1. Jurisdiction: The Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  It reasoned that the District Court's inaction in the face of urgency effectively denied the detainees' request for injunctive relief.

2. Due Process: The Court emphasized that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process in removal proceedings.  It found that the 24-hour notice provided to the detainees was inadequate and did not allow them sufficient time to seek habeas relief.

3. Class-wide Relief: The Court granted temporary injunctive relief to the putative class of detainees, even though the District Court had denied class certification.  It noted that courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class to preserve jurisdiction while the question of notice is adjudicated.

Remand Instructions

The Court directed the Fifth Circuit to:

1. Address the preliminary injunction factors, including the likelihood of success on the merits of the detainees' habeas claims challenging the validity of removal under the AEA.

2. Determine what notice is constitutionally required for the putative class to contest their removal.

Scope of the Decision

The Court clarified that it was not addressing the underlying merits of the legality of removals under the AEA but was solely focused on the adequacy of notice and due process rights.

Concurring Opinion (Justice Kavanaugh)

Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the Court's decision to grant a temporary injunction, emphasizing the urgency of resolving the legal questions surrounding the AEA and the detainees' removal.  He expressed a preference for the Supreme Court to resolve the case directly rather than remanding it to lower courts.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas)

Justice Alito dissented, arguing:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction: He contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the District Court did not constructively deny injunctive relief.  He described the District Court's actions as reasonable under the circumstances.

2. Weak Evidence: Alito criticized the detainees' factual submissions as insufficient to demonstrate imminent harm or urgency.

3. Class-wide Relief: He questioned whether class relief is permissible in habeas proceedings and argued that the named plaintiffs' claims were not typical of the putative class.

4. Premature Certiorari: Alito objected to the Court granting certiorari before judgment, noting that neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals had decided any merits questions.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court granted temporary injunctive relief to prevent the removal of the detainees and remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit to address the adequacy of notice and other preliminary issues.  The decision underscores the importance of due process in removal proceedings and the need for courts to act expeditiously in cases involving urgent claims of irreparable harm.

---

Featured Articles