605 U.S. 91 (2025) · 2025
A.A.R.P. v. Trump
immigrationdue processhabeas corpusAlien Enemies Actexecutive poweremergency docketclass actionsLandmark
Summary
A.A.R.P. v. Trump came from an emergency fight over removals under the Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Circuit was wrong to dismiss the appeal and that detainees must receive constitutionally adequate notice before removal, with enough time and information to seek habeas relief. The Court granted temporary relief for the named plaintiffs and putative class, vacated the Fifth Circuit judgment, and sent the case back. The decision did not decide whether the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful on the merits.
Background & Context
The Alien Enemies Act is a 1798 wartime statute. In March 2025, President Trump invoked it against alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang the government designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The government sought fast removals. Detainees challenged the process, arguing that they needed meaningful notice and a chance to seek habeas relief before being sent out of the country. The Supreme Court's May 2025 order focused on due process and court access, not on whether the proclamation was valid.
The Question Before the Court
When detainees face imminent removal under the Alien Enemies Act, did the Fifth Circuit have jurisdiction to review the district court's failure to act, and what notice is constitutionally required before removal so detainees can seek habeas relief?
Petitioner
A.A.R.P., et al.
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- The Fifth Circuit had jurisdiction because the district court's inaction effectively denied emergency relief.
- Due process requires meaningful notice before removal.
- Classwide temporary relief was needed to preserve court jurisdiction.
Respondent
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction or should not intervene at this stage.
- The government had national-security interests in carrying out the removals.
- Classwide relief was premature.
The Holding
The Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees' emergency appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A district court's failure to act in urgent circumstances can have the practical effect of denying an injunction. People facing removal under the Alien Enemies Act must receive notice that gives them a reasonable time and real ability to seek habeas relief before removal.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
7-2
Vote
Joined decision
7 justicesAC
Amy Barrett
Majority
BK
Brett Kavanaugh
Majority
EK
Elena Kagan
Majority
JR
John Roberts
Majority
KB
Ketanji Jackson
Majority
NG
Neil Gorsuch
Majority
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Majority
Dissented
2 justicesCT
Clarence Thomas
Dissent
SA
Samuel Alito
Dissent
What this means for you
The ruling protected access to court for detainees facing rapid deportation under a wartime law. It mattered most for Venezuelan migrants accused by the government of Tren de Aragua membership, especially people held in detention who may have had little time to contact lawyers, gather proof, or file habeas petitions. The Court left the larger fight unresolved: whether the Alien Enemies Act can be used against alleged gang members in this context and what final process is required. But it made clear that national-security claims do not erase basic notice and habeas protections.
Key Takeaways
- The Court held that urgent district-court inaction can function as a denial of an injunction for appellate-jurisdiction purposes.
- The Court said AEA detainees must get notice that gives them a real chance to seek habeas relief before removal.
- The Court found that roughly 24 hours' notice without information about how to exercise due-process rights was not enough under these circumstances.
- The decision temporarily protected both named plaintiffs and putative class members from removal under the AEA while the lower courts handled the case.
- The Court did not decide whether the Alien Enemies Act authorizes the removals or whether the government's Tren de Aragua theory is lawful.
Decision
7-2 per curiam order
- Citation
- 605 U.S. 91 (2025)
- Vote
- 7-2
- Decision type
- Per curiam order
- Argued
- No oral argument
- Decided
- May 16, 2025
- Term
- 2024
- Opinion author
- Unsigned per curiam
The Court issued a per curiam opinion. Justice Kavanaugh concurred. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas.