A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91

The President invoked the Alien Enemies Act to remove Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Two Venezuelan detainees, along with a putative class of similarly situated detainees, were held in U.S. detention facilities and challenged their imminent removal under the Act.
The district court denied their request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against summary removal; detainees quickly sought emergency relief as removal was alleged to be imminent.
The Fifth Circuit dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the district court had insufficient time to act.
The Supreme Court construed the detainees' application as a petition for writ of certiorari, granted it, ordered injunctive relief to prevent removal, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings on the due process required before removal.
Dissent argued there was no jurisdiction, inadequate grounds for classwide injunctive relief, and criticized certiorari before judgment consideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal	District court inaction amounted to denial of TRO	No denial; district court was acting reasonably	Affirmed jurisdiction – district court inaction effectively denied injunction
Due process before removal under AEA	Aliens entitled to notice and chance to seek habeas	Short notice is adequate, removals justified	Detainees entitled to more notice than was given, remanded for further process
Classwide injunctive relief	All putative class members face imminent harm	No class certification, individualized due process	Temporary classwide relief warranted to preserve jurisdiction
Certiorari before judgment	Urgent need for Supreme Court resolution	Not appropriate without merits decision below	Granted—to resolve urgent constitutional and procedural issues

Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (Appellate jurisdiction over orders with practical effect of denying injunctions)
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (Procedural due process protects against unjustified deprivations)
The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) (Due process requires an opportunity to be heard before removal)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (Notice must be reasonably calculated to inform parties and allow time to respond)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (Rigorous analysis required before class certification)
University of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (Preliminary relief preserves relative positions of the parties)