Docket 24A1007
AARP v. Trump
DecidedMay 16, 2025
7-2decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court blocks deportations of Venezuelan detainees, requires adequate notice before removal under Alien Enemies Act
Impact7/10
What it does
The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee requires that detainees facing removal under the Alien Enemies Act receive notice that is reasonably calculated to inform them of their situation and gives them enough time to actually seek court review before removal. The Court ruled that roughly 24 hours of notice, with no information about how to challenge the removal, does not meet that constitutional standard. The case was sent back to the Fifth Circuit to determine exactly what kind of notice is required, and the government is barred from removing the named detainees or putative class members under the Alien Enemies Act while that process plays out.
Who benefits
Venezuelan nationals held in U.S. detention facilities who have been identified as members of Tren de Aragua and are subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Detainees who have not yet received any formal notice of removal under the Act also benefit from the temporary injunction.
Who is affected
Federal executive branch officials seeking to carry out removals of Alien Enemies Act detainees, who must now provide constitutionally adequate notice — including sufficient time and information for detainees to seek legal review — before any removal can proceed.
Practical impact
The federal government cannot remove any of the named detainees or putative class members under the Alien Enemies Act until the Fifth Circuit resolves the notice question and, if certiorari is sought, until the Supreme Court disposes of that petition. Going forward, the Fifth Circuit must determine what specific notice — including how much time and what information — the Constitution requires before an Alien Enemies Act removal can lawfully occur. The government may still remove individuals under other legal authorities not covered by this ruling.
Majority reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment entitles people in removal proceedings, including non-citizens, to due process of law, which has long required that no person be removed without some opportunity to be heard. The majority held that the district court's failure to act for over 14 hours on an emergency motion — while detainees faced imminent removal — had the practical effect of denying an injunction, giving the appeals court jurisdiction to step in. The Court found that notice of roughly 24 hours before removal, with no explanation of how to challenge that removal in court, plainly fails the constitutional requirement that notice be "reasonably calculated" to inform detainees and give them a "reasonable time" to respond. The majority emphasized that all nine Justices had previously agreed that Alien Enemies Act detainees must receive notice in a manner that allows them to "actually seek habeas relief" — meaning enough time and information to contact a lawyer, file a petition, and pursue relief. Rather than set the precise notice requirements itself, the Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit to determine what specific process the Constitution demands, while keeping the temporary block on removals in place.
Dissent reasoning
In dissent, Justice Alito argued first that the Court lacked jurisdiction entirely, because the district court had not actually denied an injunction — it was still actively working on the motion and had set a reasonable schedule for the government to respond. The dissent contended that the district judge was proceeding carefully and diligently on a complex matter, and that giving him only 42 minutes (or even 133 minutes) to act before filing an appeal was an extraordinary and improper litigation tactic, not a genuine emergency. Justice Alito further argued that the factual record before the district court on April 18 was weak — the most specific evidence of imminent removal was a double-hearsay statement from an unidentified person, and the two named petitioners had already been promised they would not be removed while their habeas cases were pending. The dissent also challenged the Court's decision to extend relief to the entire putative class, arguing that class actions have no established place in habeas proceedings, that the named petitioners lacked a personal stake in the class notice question since they already had protection, and that the district court had since conducted a full analysis and explicitly refused to certify the class. Finally, Justice Alito objected to the Court granting certiorari before any court had ruled on the merits, calling it an improper expansion of the Court's original jurisdiction and a departure from its role as a court of review rather than first decision.
Constitutional question
Do Venezuelan nationals detained under the Alien Enemies Act have a Fifth Amendment due process right to receive adequate notice — with enough time and information to seek court review — before being removed from the United States? And did the lower courts have jurisdiction to hear their emergency appeal?
Precedent changed
The ruling extends the notice requirement established in Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670 (2025), applying it to a broader class of Alien Enemies Act detainees and clarifying that roughly 24 hours of notice without instructions on how to seek legal review is constitutionally insufficient.