A.A.R.P. v. Trump
The Supreme Court issued an emergency order shortly after midnight blocking the government from removing a group of detained immigrants in Texas who were subject to a Presidential Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, at least until the Court issues a further order.
The unsigned order was issued without a government response and before lower courts finished reviewing the matter — prompting a sharp dissent from two justices who called it procedurally unprecedented and legally questionable.
How it got here: Detained immigrants facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act applied to the Supreme Court after the Fifth Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction over their appeal.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Trump administration issued a March 2025 Presidential Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act — a law allowing the government to detain or deport nationals of countries deemed enemies — to target alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua. A group of immigrants detained in Texas who were subject to that proclamation feared imminent deportation and sought emergency legal protection to halt their removal while they challenged the government's authority in court.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court issue a midnight emergency order blocking the government from deporting a group of detained immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act, before lower courts have ruled and before the government has had a chance to respond?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Supreme Court issued an emergency order directing the government not to remove any member of the putative detainee class in the Northern District of Texas subject to the Alien Enemies Act proclamation, until the Court issues a superseding order. The majority acted under the All Writs Act, which allows courts to issue orders necessary to protect their jurisdiction, here tied to the detainees' ongoing habeas corpus (court-ordered-release) petitions.
The order was issued shortly after midnight without a response from the government and without waiting for the Fifth Circuit to rule. Two justices dissented, arguing the Court had no clear jurisdiction, the factual basis for urgency was thin, the applicants had not properly exhausted lower-court remedies, and the Court violated its own procedural rules by acting so hastily.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The detained immigrants — alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua — cannot be removed while the Court's order stands. More broadly, the case raises urgent questions about how quickly the government can deport people under the Alien Enemies Act and what procedural safeguards apply when it does.
What changes now
The government is barred from removing members of the putative detainee class until the Supreme Court issues a new order. The underlying habeas cases continue in the lower courts, where judges will consider whether the Alien Enemies Act proclamation was lawfully invoked and what process is due before removal. This is a temporary emergency order, not a final ruling on the merits of the government's deportation authority.
What this does not decide
The order does not decide whether the Alien Enemies Act proclamation was lawfully issued, whether these detainees are properly subject to it, or whether the habeas petitions will ultimately succeed. It also does not resolve the unresolved legal question of whether class-wide relief is available in habeas proceedings.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Alito
Justice Alito argued the majority acted in an unprecedented and legally questionable manner. He raised serious doubts about the Court's jurisdiction (because the Fifth Circuit had just found it lacked jurisdiction for the same reason), faulted the majority for not waiting for the government to respond or the lower courts to finish their work, noted the thin factual basis for the claim of imminent deportation, and objected that the Court issued a class-wide order without a certified class and without any explanation for its ruling.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The detainees filed habeas corpus petitions — court petitions challenging the lawfulness of their imprisonment — and sought emergency relief to stop deportations under a March 2025 Presidential Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a federal law that allows the government to detain or remove nationals from countries deemed adversaries during wartime.
- To bring their emergency application to the Supreme Court, the detainees relied on the All Writs Act, which permits federal courts to issue orders 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' their existing jurisdiction. The applicants argued the Supreme Court had that underlying jurisdiction through the habeas proceedings already underway in the lower courts.
- After the district court did not rule within the narrow window the applicants set on a Friday afternoon, the applicants filed a notice of appeal. The Fifth Circuit then ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the applicants had appealed a 'constructive' denial of a temporary restraining order — a procedural category that is not directly appealable under the relevant statute — rather than an actual denial of a preliminary injunction.
- Despite the Fifth Circuit finding no jurisdiction and a government attorney representing in a related case that no deportations were then planned for April 18 or 19, the Supreme Court majority issued a class-wide injunction shortly after midnight, ordering the government not to remove any member of the putative detainee class until further order of the Court.
- The two dissenting justices challenged virtually every step: they argued jurisdiction was unclear, that the applicants had not adequately sought relief from lower courts first, that the Court acted without any government response and on thin factual support for imminent harm, and that class-wide relief in a habeas proceeding was itself an unresolved legal question the Court had never approved.