Here's an analysis of the US Supreme Court case A. A. R. P. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., decided May 16, 2025. The opinion can be downloaded by clicking here.
The case involves detainees from Venezuela, alleged members of the terrorist group Tren de Aragua (TdA), who face removal under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The detainees sought injunctions to prevent their summary removal, asserting they were not given constitutionally adequate notice or due process before removal.
The Supreme Court granted a temporary injunction preventing removal pending further proceedings, vacated the Fifth Circuit's dismissal of detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded the case for further consideration of due process notice requirements and the merits of removal authority under the AEA.
Key points:
-
The Court found the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees' interlocutory appeal, reasoning that the district court's delay had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief despite the urgency of imminent removals.
-
The Court stressed that the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process rights to aliens subject to removal, including timely and meaningful notice sufficient to allow detainees to seek habeas relief before removal.
-
The Court declined to resolve the ultimate legality of removals under the AEA or precise due process requirements itself, instead remanding those issues to the lower courts for expedited resolution.
-
The Court allowed classwide injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction, despite the district court denying class certification on the underlying habeas claims. The Court reasoned that temporary relief on notice rights for a putative class was appropriate pending further proceedings.
-
Justice Kavanaugh concurred, emphasizing the importance of prompt Supreme Court resolution of the underlying legal questions.
-
Justice Alito dissented, arguing no jurisdiction existed to grant relief, that the district court had not constructively denied injunction, and that classwide relief was improper in habeas proceedings. He criticized the Court's procedural approach as unprecedented and overreaching.
The case highlights tensions between executive national security actions and constitutional protections for detainees facing removal, especially under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act. It underscores the Court's role in ensuring due process rights even where urgent removal is involved, while leaving detailed procedural and substantive questions to lower courts for further development.
Girards Law Firm specializes in cases involving severe injuries and wrongful death, especially those that involve brain injury, spinal cord injuries or severe burns. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com using the chat feature on our website for more information.