785 F.Supp.3d 644
C.D. Cal.2025Background
- Darwin Antonio Arevalo Millan, a Venezuelan citizen and asylum applicant, is detained in California and faces potential removal under President Trump’s March 2025 Proclamation (No. 10903), issued under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), targeting Venezuelans allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua group.
- Arevalo was detained without prior notice or clear warrant, on suspicion—based primarily on his Venezuelan nationality and tattoos—of possible gang affiliation.
- Arevalo seeks to represent a class of Venezuelan nationals detained in the Central District of California who are or may be subject to the Proclamation, and requested a preliminary injunction (PI) and class certification.
- Recent Supreme Court and lower court decisions set precedents on notice and process due under removal orders issued under this Proclamation/AEA authority.
- The Government contests Arevalo’s standing and asserts he is detained under the INA, not the AEA, and has not yet been designated for removal under the Proclamation.
- The court grants preliminary injunctive relief and class certification, restraining removals/ transfers under the Proclamation pending further due process review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Faces imminent threat of removal; substantial risk under Proclamation | Detained under INA, not AEA; not designated for Proclamation removal | Arevalo has standing; threat is imminent and not speculative |
| Lawfulness of Proclamation under AEA | Proclamation is unlawful—President improperly invoked AEA | Presidential authority under AEA is beyond judicial review; issue is political question | Challenge to findings is nonjusticiable; court defers to President's determination |
| Due Process | Removal under AEA requires advance notice and opportunity to challenge designation | Sufficient notice/process already provided; will give some advance notice, but not committed to a specific timeframe | Due process requires more notice and process than Government provides; relief granted |
| Class Certification | Class of similarly situated detainees facing common legal/process issues | Habeas claims cannot be class actions; individual issues predominate | Class certified under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief questions of due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948) (supreme court constrains courts to defer to President’s findings under AEA, but allows review of interpretation and constitutionality of the Act)
- Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) (establishes judicial inquiry is limited to existence of state of war and alien enemy status under AEA)
- Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (sets standard for class certification, especially regarding commonality)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (injunctive relief standards and merger of public interest/equity factors when government is a party)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard in federal courts)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (numerosity and commonality requirements under Rule 23)
- Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010) (permissive typicality standard in class actions)