Trump v. J. G. G.
604 U. S. ____ (2025) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Challenges to detention and removal under the Alien Enemies Act, particularly claims implying the invalidity of such confinement and removal, fall within the core of the writ of habeas corpus and must be brought in the district of confinement. Individuals subject to removal under the Act are entitled to Fifth Amendment due process, requiring notice and a meaningful opportunity for judicial review via habeas corpus before removal occurs.
Facts:
- The State Department designated Tren de Aragua (TdA) as a foreign terrorist organization.
- President Trump issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals identified as members of TdA, defining 'alien enemy' to include Venezuelan citizens 14 years or older who are TdA members, are in the U.S., and are not naturalized citizens or lawful permanent residents.
- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began moving Venezuelan migrants, many of whom denied TdA affiliation, from various detention centers to the El Valle Detention Facility in South Texas before the President had signed or publicly issued the Proclamation.
- On March 14, 2025, transferred detainees were informed they would be deported the next day to an unknown destination.
- Five detainees, including J. G. G. (who had tattoos mistaken for gang affiliation) and G. F. F. (accused based on presence at a party), and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the Proclamation's implementation and their removal.
- Even after the lawsuit was filed and an emergency hearing scheduled, the Government began ushering named plaintiffs onto planes for deportation without allowing them to contact their lawyers or receive notice/hearing; G. F. F. was retrieved from a plane after approximately 40 minutes due to a court order.
- The White House finally published the Proclamation on its website only an hour before the District Court's scheduled emergency hearing.
- The Government landed planes carrying alleged Venezuelan nationals in El Salvador and transferred them directly into El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).
Procedural Posture:
- President Trump issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
- Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the Proclamation's implementation and their removal in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- On March 15, 2025, the District Court issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and a provisionally certified class under the Proclamation.
- On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for an additional 14 days.
- The Government filed an emergency motion to stay the District Court’s orders, which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied.
- The Government then applied to the Supreme Court, seeking vacatur of the District Court’s orders.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a legal challenge to detention and removal under the Alien Enemies Act, specifically claims implying the invalidity of confinement and removal, fall within the core of habeas corpus requiring filing in the district of confinement?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, challenges to detention and removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in habeas corpus proceedings in the district of confinement. The Court construed the temporary restraining orders (TROs) as appealable injunctions. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely 'preclude[s] judicial review' as established in Ludecke v. Watkins, must be brought in habeas. Referencing Heikkila v. Barber, the Court noted that if claims for relief 'necessarily imply the invalidity' of confinement and removal under the AEA, they fall within the 'core' of the writ of habeas corpus, irrespective of whether immediate physical release is formally requested. Citing Nance v. Ward and Heck v. Humphrey, the Court held that for 'core habeas petitions,' 'jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement,' as held in Rumsfeld v. Padilla. Since the detainees are confined in Texas, venue was improper in the District of Columbia. The Court also affirmed that individuals subject to AEA removal are entitled to 'judicial review' on questions of interpretation and constitutionality of the Act and their status as alien enemies. They are entitled to Fifth Amendment due process, specifically notice and opportunity to be heard 'appropriate to the nature of the case,' as per Reno v. Flores and Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. This notice must be given reasonably and allow for habeas relief in the proper venue before removal.
Concurring - Kavanaugh, J.
Yes, challenges to detention and removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in habeas corpus proceedings in the district of confinement. Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the per curiam opinion that judicial review is available, and the central issue is the proper venue. He affirmed that claims challenging transfers under the AEA must be brought in habeas, noting that using habeas for 'transfer claims' is a long-standing practice in contexts like extradition and wartime detainees, citing LoBue v. Christopher and Kiyemba v. Obama, and the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. He further reasoned that 5 U.S.C. §704, which makes Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims unavailable when there is another 'adequate remedy in a court,' supports the conclusion that habeas corpus is the proper and exclusive vehicle here.
Dissenting - Sotomayor, J.
No, the Court should not vacate the temporary restraining orders issued by the District Court, as its legal conclusion regarding the proper procedural vehicle is suspect and the Court lacks jurisdiction to intervene at this preliminary stage. Justice Sotomayor criticized the President's 'unprecedented peacetime invocation' of a wartime law and the summary removal of immigrants to a brutal foreign prison without due process. While acknowledging the majority's concession that due process and judicial review are required, she argued the Court lacked jurisdiction to review an interlocutory TRO, as it did not pose an 'irreparable consequence' to the Government. She found the majority's conclusion that claims 'sound' in habeas dubious, contrasting it with the purpose of habeas (challenging custody) and noting the plaintiffs did not seek release but protection from deportation. She questioned extending the Heck v. Humphrey bar from §1983 to APA claims, citing historical precedent for APA relief in deportation cases (Brownell v. Tom We Shung, Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro) and the APA's broad purpose. She further lamented the Court's rush to decide novel legal questions on the emergency docket without full briefing or oral argument, highlighting the severe and irreparable harm to detainees (difficulty obtaining counsel, secret transfers, risk of CECOT) if forced into individual habeas actions. She also noted the Government's 'unclean hands' due to its attempts to evade judicial review, including 'hustl[ing] people onto those planes' and potential noncompliance with the District Court's orders.
Dissenting - Jackson, J.
No, the Court should deny the application to vacate the District Court's orders, as intervening on the eve of a preliminary injunction hearing without full briefing and argument is misguided and dangerous. Justice Jackson joined Justice Sotomayor's dissent and specifically questioned the majority's 'fly-by-night approach' to a complex and monumental issue. She emphasized that the President's invocation of a centuries-old wartime statute to remove people to a 'notoriously brutal, foreign-run prison' warranted 'considerable thought and attention from the Judiciary,' typically involving full briefing, oral argument, and deliberation. She warned that deviating from standard processes substantially increases the risk of error, calling today's rushed conclusion 'Exhibit A.' She lamented the Court's 'new era of procedural variability' and the increasing number of significant rulings made 'in the shadows of our emergency docket,' which leaves less trace for posterity to see how the Court might have erred.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the proper procedural vehicle for challenging executive action under the Alien Enemies Act, mandating habeas corpus over Administrative Procedure Act claims and restricting jurisdiction to the detainee's district of confinement. While narrowing the procedural path, the Court reaffirms that individuals subject to AEA removal are entitled to Fifth Amendment due process, requiring both notice and a meaningful opportunity for judicial review before removal. The dissents highlight profound concerns about the Supreme Court's growing reliance on the 'shadow docket' for rapid adjudication of complex and consequential legal issues, warning of potential errors and severe, irreversible harm to individuals when procedural avenues are curtailed without thorough deliberation.
