779 F.Supp.3d 1264
D. Colo.2025Background
- Plaintiffs (D.B.U. and R.M.M.), Venezuelan nationals detained in Colorado, challenge imminent transfer and removal under the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), designated a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”
- Plaintiffs fear being summarily removed as "alien enemies" without adequate notice due to being associated—disputed by them— with TdA.
- The government asserts neither plaintiff is currently subject to the Proclamation but refuses to foreclose future designation and removal under it.
- Plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking to prevent transfer out of Colorado and to require advance notice and the opportunity for judicial review before any removal.
- The Supreme Court has previously held that individuals detained under the AEA are entitled to notice sufficient to seek habeas relief before removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's Habeas Jurisdiction | In-custody requirement is met due to real risk of AEA-based removal. | No jurisdiction since currently not subject to AEA/Proclamation. | Court has jurisdiction; risk is sufficient for habeas standing. |
| Justiciability/Ripeness/Standing | Substantial risk of designation under Proclamation supports standing and ripeness. | Claims are speculative and unripe unless and until actively designated under the Proclamation. | Court finds risk is substantial enough; claims are justiciable and ripe. |
| President’s Statutory Authority under AEA | Proclamation exceeds authority: “invasion”/"predatory incursion" means wartime actions. | President's findings on invasion and TdA’s threat are conclusive and satisfy the AEA requirements. | Proclamation does not meet statutory requirements; “invasion”/"incursion" means military action, not crime. |
| Due Process/Notice of Removal | Current notice is deficient: in English only, no real explanation of habeas rights/time. | Notice is sufficient and provides opportunity to make a phone call; no strict time requirement needed. | Notice is constitutionally deficient; 21-day, language-appropriate notice required with info on legal rights. |
| Relief Under INA | INA provisions do not bar relief for removals under the AEA. | INA precludes the Court from restraining transfer/detention of aliens under these circumstances. | INA does not bar temporary injunctive relief regarding Proclamation-based removals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (judicial review principle)
- Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948) (scope of presidential authority and AEA in wartime; judicial review permissible)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political question doctrine is limited; courts decide statutes’ constitutionality)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (public interest in preventing wrongful removal of aliens)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (adequate notice—must be reasonable, informative, and in time for recourse)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process requires meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard)