Trump v. J. G. G.

Background

The President issued Proclamation No. 10903 invoking the Alien Enemies Act to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua. Five named detainees and a putative class asked a District Court in Washington, D.C., to block those removals; the court issued temporary restraining orders on March 15 and extended them on March 28. The Government sought emergency relief after the D.C. Circuit denied a stay and applied to this Court to vacate the orders.

Reasoning

The core question was where and how people can challenge removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The Court held that those challenges “fall within the core of the writ of habeas corpus,” so they must be brought as habeas petitions in the district where the detainees are confined. Because the detainees are confined in Texas, venue in Washington was improper. The Court vacated the D.C. temporary restraining orders, said the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of the procedural question, and emphasized that detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to seek habeas relief before removal.

Real world impact

Practically, people the Government says are removable under the Proclamation must file habeas petitions where they are detained rather than litigate a nationwide class in Washington, D.C. The Court did not decide whether individuals actually are removable under the Act; it resolved only the procedural vehicle and venue. The Court also required the Government to give notice in time to allow detainees to pursue habeas relief before removal.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kavanaugh concurred with the result. Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, and partly by Justice Barrett) dissented, criticizing the Court’s urgency, describing Government transfers to El Salvador’s CECOT without notice, and warning of grave harm to detainees.