A.A.R.P. v. Trump

A.A.R.P. v. Trump
Court	United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Full case name	A.A.R.P. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.
Docket nos.	1:25-CV-59
Court membership
Judge sitting	James Wesley Hendrix

A.A.R.P. v. Trump is a pending class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking writs of habeas corpus on behalf of detained Venezuelan immigrants who allegedly qualify for deportation under the United States president Donald Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. At around 1:00 a.m. on April 19, 2025, in a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered the United States government not to remove any of the purported class members until further order of the court.

Background

Main articles: March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans and J.G.G. v. Trump

On March 14, 2025, the United States president Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Trump declared that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua were invading the United States under the direction of the government of Venezuela and directed the deportation of certain Venezuelan citizens who had been determined to be part of Tren de Aragua. The proclamation was publicized on March 15, and on the same date, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of people alleged to be covered by the proclamation. That same day, the chief judge of the court James Boasberg signed an order prohibiting the United States from deporting any members of the purported class. After the order was issued, planes containing approximately 250 people continued to El Salvador, where they were then deplaned and imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center at the United States' direction.

On April 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an unsigned opinion in Trump v. J.G.G. which held that the case should have been brought in the United States district court for the district where the purported class members were being detained using a writ of habeas corpus, rather than a civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also held that those allegedly subject to the proclamation were entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing in district court under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Following the Supreme Court's determination, district courts throughout the United States issued orders in habeas class actions prohibiting the government from deporting individuals subject to removal under the proclamation.

Early litigation and Supreme Court order

Photograph of deportation notice filed in district court

On April 16, 2025, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking writs of habeas corpus on behalf of detained Venezuelan immigrants who allegedly qualify for deportation under the proclamation. On April 18, the ACLU sought an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO), alleging that the government was preparing to deport hundreds of Venezuelan men being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, without proper notice or an opportunity to be heard. The ACLU alleged that hundreds of men had been placed on busses to be brought to flights going to the Terrorism Confinement Center. They alleged that the written notice required by J.G.G. was written in English, and not Spanish, and that the government had sought to pressure some detainees to sign waivers without properly explaining their rights. At a hearing, an attorney for the United States government told Judge James Wesley Hendrix that no deportation flights had been scheduled for Friday or Saturday and that detainees would be given at least 24 hours notice. The district court declined to issue a TRO.

The ACLU appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States late Friday. At around 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, April 19, 2025 in a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court directed the United States government not to remove any of the purported class members until further order of the court. It also invited a response from the government. The justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted their dissents, but Justice Alito was not given an opportunity to issue a written dissent at the time the order was issued. After the Supreme Court ruled, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to award relief to the plaintiffs. Later the same day, the Solicitor General of the United States Dean John Sauer responded to the TRO request, arguing that the request for an injunction was premature because the government had agreed not to deport named plaintiff and other detainees had been provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to file for a habeas writ. On April 20, 2025, Justice Alito issued a dissent in which he argued that the court likely lacked jurisdiction to issue an order, that the plaintiffs had failed to show that they were in imminent danger, and that the court's order was premature.

Reactions

Commentators described the Supreme Court's order as unusual and noted that it marked a turning point in the court's dealings with the administration. Ian Millhiser, writing for Vox, said that the United States government appeared to be violating the Supreme Court's order in J.G.G. and that the court's order suggested that it had lost patience with the Trump administration's evasion of its order. Adam Liptak in The New York Times wrote that the order "indicated a deep skepticism" of the Trump administration's adherence to the law. In Slate, Mark Joseph Stern noted that the 7–2 vote marked a significant turn for the court's conservative members and that the court had broken protocol by issuing an order before Justice Alito had an opportunity to write a dissent.

The Trump administration called the litigation meritless and defended the lawfulness of its deportation efforts. Trump allies like Bill Ackman, Stephen Miller, and Elon Musk suggested that alleged alien enemies should have limited judicial process to contest their deportations. The constitutional law scholar Josh Blackman criticized the court, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction to issue its order.

See also

• Shadow docket