772 F.Supp.3d 18
D.D.C.2025Background
- Five Venezuelan noncitizens detained in Texas sought emergency relief to stop removal from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, invoked by Presidential Proclamation.
- The Proclamation targeted alleged members of Tren de Aragua—a Venezuelan gang designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization—asserting the group had perpetrated an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" against the U.S.
- Plaintiffs denied gang membership and feared wrongful removal and torture if sent to El Salvador, where deportees would face dangerous prison conditions.
- The Court issued Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs), preventing removal solely under the Proclamation, while still permitting removal under other authorities (e.g., the INA).
- Government moved to vacate the TROs, challenging jurisdiction and the likelihood of plaintiffs prevailing on the merits; the case involved expedited factual and legal proceedings due to imminent removals.
- Central to the dispute was whether plaintiffs were entitled to individualized hearings to contest their gang affiliation before removal under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court Jurisdiction (APA vs. Habeas) | APA jurisdiction applies; not seeking release but to contest removal under the Proclamation | Only habeas provides jurisdiction, review must be in district of detention | Court has jurisdiction under APA for these claims |
| Lawfulness of Presidential Proclamation under Alien Enemies Act | Actions of Tren de Aragua do not amount to "invasion" by a "nation/government"; Proclamation invalid | National security and foreign affairs make issue nonjusticiable (political question) | Court need not resolve now; focus on opportunity to contest designations |
| Entitlement to Hearings before Removal | Must be allowed individualized hearings to contest gang designation | Government's determinations are sufficient; summary removal lawful | Plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to challenge designation before removal |
| Protections under CAT/FARRA (torture claims) | Removal to El Salvador risks torture; must have chance to pursue CAT claims | Alien enemies not entitled to such protections; claim not reviewable | TRO warranted; failure to provide opportunity to claim protection likely unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948) (Supreme Court recognized judicial review of alien enemy status and presidential authority under Alien Enemies Act)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (sets out preliminary injunction factors)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standards)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (public interest and irreparable harm in removal decisions)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (scope of habeas review in context of executive detention)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (judicial role in enemy combatant designation)
- Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012) (court's role in foreign affairs disputes)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (availability of APA and habeas review)