J.O.P. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 25-1519

Plaintiffs are a class of noncitizen adults who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied children and challenged changes to asylum adjudication policy.
In 2024, the parties reached a nationwide settlement requiring that class members not be removed until USCIS adjudicates their asylum applications on the merits.
Cristian, a class member from Venezuela, was removed to El Salvador under a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) after being detained by ICE; his asylum application was still pending.
Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the settlement; the district court ordered the government to "facilitate" Cristian’s return to the U.S. for his asylum proceedings.
The government sought a stay of that order, arguing that the AEA removal did not constitute a "final removal order" under the settlement and that returning Cristian was futile.
The Fourth Circuit panel denied the motion to stay, with two judges concurring and a dissent from Judge Richardson.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Definition of "final removal order" in Settlement	Includes all removals, including those under the AEA, as the settlement’s plain language is broad and unqualified	Only applies to Title 8 (immigration statute) removal orders, not to AEA-based removals	Court held “final removal order” is broad, covering AEA removals
Injunctive relief - Facilitation order	"Facilitate" means active steps—including diplomatic requests—to secure Cristian’s return for due process	District court order impermissibly intrudes on executive’s exclusive diplomatic authority	Court held facilitation requiring good faith request is proper and not overbroad
Rule 60(b)(5) - Changed circumstances/futility	Litigation-driven "Indicative Asylum Decision" did not provide a merits adjudication or real change	The government’s new decision makes return and adjudication futile; relief is no longer equitable	Court found no significant changed circumstances; process due under settlement remains
Public interest & equities for a stay	Harm to Cristian (detention, due process loss) outweighs government interest; public interest favors compliance with legal process	Stay needed to protect foreign policy interests and avoid meaningless or futile relief	Court found equities favored Cristian; no irreparable harm to government demonstrated

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (standard for granting a stay pending appeal)
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (judicial review and courts' obligation to interpret law)
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (presidential power in foreign affairs)
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (presidential authority under Alien Enemies Act)
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (discretion in granting asylum)
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (definition of final removal order in immigration)
Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335 (executive branch discretion in removal)